So much resentment towards mothers, free day care or any “good stuff” child related; greedy goodness in the “great” USA.
11
Imagine that other biological functions were optional like motherhood. There would inevitably a be a contingent of arrogant non-respirators complaining about picking up the slack of the breathers.
15
Family is always the top priority unless of course you live in chlorine gas attacked Syria or drought ridden South Africa, then maybe just survival.
Anuway, work is demanding. Success is even more demanding but let’s get some perspective here and give the mom’s some latitude.
3
My guess is this bias comes from people of both genders
4
I find interesting the number of commenters who highlight pregnancy and motherhood as a choice, not an illness and thereby less worthy of consideration when an employee needs to take leave. It is much like the argument that contraceptives shouldn't be covered, because they are a "choice" and not meant to treat illness. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Which really boils down to a weaselly excuse for misogyny.
48
This cowardice against unborn babies, moms and women needs to stop.
From what I see, it's mainly white people who hate the idea of saving a human life rather than murdering him in the womb.
People in America have lost their morals and sense.
They care more about the life of a baby animal than baby humans.
It's why killing a baby Bald Eagle is a felony and murdering an unborn child is completely legal and encouraged.
Isn't this madness?
A people like this are doomed and could care less about a pregnant woman.
2
Author Katherine Goldstein begins: "Last fall, I was in a meeting with a leader in women’s health . . . when, out of the blue . . . [t]his woman . . . openly and casually admitt[ed] to illegal discrimination, against another mother." Inasmuch as Ms. Goldstein is identified as a journalist, why doesn't she name the offender? Did the woman insist on anonymity? If she did, Ms. Goldstein ought to say so. If she didn't, Ms. Goldstein ought to publish the name of the offender. Wouldn't Ms. Goldstein have published the name if the offender were male?
11
Congratulations New York Times on highlighting comments that represent the full range of sexist views, including internalized, interpersonal, institutional and ideological sexism. As of this posting, 7 of the 19 "NYT Picks" comments display the exact anti-mom bias (and sexism) that Katherine Goldstein describes in her opinion piece. These commenters believe that women who are pregnant or who have children work less than others, are less productive, and do not belong in the workforce. They believe that it is the responsibility of these individual women to create a parental leave system that does not penalize other employees, as opposed to the responsibility of employers or society. These commenters ironically fail to realize that these sexist beliefs are exactly the problem that Katherine Goldstein is trying to call out in her article.
30
To the author, I would love to share my story with you regarding my journey as a stay at home mom for 11 years, dealing w special needs (and being the main parent to manage that - hence part of the reason I stayed home for so long and a factor for divorce), to filing for divorce in Austin, Texas and having dad be given the “primary role” and what gender discrimination and prejudices occur at the court level through family law and afterwards in the hiring process whole trying to get a job (bc I had to start completely over). According to the judge, “you don’t need much alimony, and you’ll be given no support for the children, you have a degree, you can get a job”.
Let’s have a discussion about the discrimination of stay at home mothers in the legal system and who try to re-enter the workforce...
21
When I was a worker of childbearing age but with no intention of ever having children, I did resent hiring managers confusing me with entitled mommies who would always be putting in short hours.
28
We haven't spoken out because we are busy.
16
Uh oh... Here comes the wrath of the Millennial Mothers! It's a wonder they even got preggers between the incessant texting and Instagram posting!
I suppose they could start a company of pregnant workers and spouses that are continually cycling in and out of projects and deadlines...
That should work fine!
6
quite the biased article. Completely neglects the hours away from work that mothers (and increasingly, fathers) are freely granted while their childless co-workers stay late to meet the deadline. How about an article on that form of discrimination?
41
And yet, you keep separating women into groups of mothers and non-mothers to determine who's been wronged more. Expectations of women are out of whack with mothers definitely being a segment of that. I'd say teachers could claim the same since they are raising kids too. This needs to be a people issue, not just mothers - work life balance is needed everywhere and for everyone. If you've ever been a part of a work team you know this. After watching so many people tout how important their mothers are over mothers day, it seems hypocritical to see how they treat mothers and women in general through daily actions. Why doesn't congress enact programs to help society and people like their mothers that they love so much?
8
As a stay-at-home dad I might as well not even exist to these kind of people. You want to talk about a marginalized majority, try stay-at-home dads. Oh that's right though, I'm white and male so my problems and experiences aren't real.
12
The write says, "It doesn’t take much to internalize that sexism to convince ourselves that our kids are better off with a mother who doesn’t have a demanding job"
Of course kids are better off with a mother doesn't have a demanding job If that translates into more hours at work and less hours spent with the kids.
Its easy to confirm. Just as a kid.
10
Becoming a mother changes everything in a woman’s life.
1
In a civilized society new mothers would be able to stay home with their young children and the money would come from the state, payed for by taxes, not individual businesses, most of Europe makes this kind of thing work, but we prefer to let the women struggle and let the 1 percenters cash in. Shame!
13
Another thing - when I came into my job, I had had my first child. My "maternity leave" came between jobs. Yet my salary was disgustingly low and when I asked for more I was told it couldn't budge. Others (childless women) came in later and were offered more money than me. Discrimination? Who knows - the company's financial constraints differed and I'm not privy to a lot of those details. But to those in the comments section who are complaining about all the slack they take up during a scant maternity leave of 3 months, grow up. Parenthood isn't 3 months, it's a lifetime. And being underestimated and lowballed is apparently a lifetime too, at least if you're a mother.
10
I can't get past the penultimate paragraph. Of course, there's been a national discussion about this - it was called and is still called 'the women's movement', and while my generation lives and breathes, and has had the kids we've had, and now some grandchildren coming of age, I have no doubt in its endurance, its effectiveness, and its mission. RATIFYing the Equal Rights Amendment would be a very good first step. Somehow, IMHO, if we'd elected a female POTUS that possibility would be very much on the horizon or, indeed, settled and in the rear view mirror.
11
The traditional culture of this country has been one of individualism and each person for themselves. Pregnant and working mothers are caught in the change that is occuring as businesses - some voluntarily and some kicking and screaming make changes to recitify the discrimination that had been the usual way of doing business. It will take several generations to reach the place that Scandanavian and European are that the entire country is part of the team to advance the well being of everyone.
1
Bias against mothers, sexual harassment at the workplace, overt sexism in hiring and firing women and mothers, gender pay-disparity, turning domestic abuse victims down for immigration....how many examples of misogyny does one country need? When will men start to feel ashamed of their own gender for how they treat women? Women get a raw deal in almost every arena and the misogyny and collusion starts at the top!
12
Right now, as a mother you are in a catch 22 no matter what:
If you take a proper maternity leave, prepare to go broke and watch your credit plummet. Or, rush back to work right away, where your coworkers hate you, since you're tired all the time and you have to take breaks to pump.
Additionally, what if you want to still be a go getter, keep your career and hire a nanny? You're a selfish shrew. Or, maybe you're not the work obsessed type, and want the whole "work/life balance" thing so you have time to be with your kids. Get ready for a life of stagnant wages, zero respect and zero promotions.
The elephant in the room here is that our society and government generally places no real value on the task of raising responsible, productive future generations.
If the U.S. would put paid family leave into law and subsidize child care (you know, like the rest of the developed world), these problems would not necessarily vanish completely, but they would be much less invasive.
28
I don't think this is new. I think already by the 1990s in my experience and observations reasonably progressive employers were doing a pretty good job of eliminating gender-based job discrimination, but discrimination against parents, mostly mothers, was (and I suppose is) rampant.
3
Ageism is just as open and practiced by those that are pregnant as well as their spouses...
Let's bring back the golden rule: Do unto others as you would want done to you....
11
I am a business owner and all my employees are moms. Why? I figured out that I could have a much smarter, more engaged, more efficient workforce - simply by hiring moms and offering part time hours, flex time, some working from home, and ability to take off anytime for kids needs as long as the work gets done. These women are deeply committed to their jobs. And they get things done faster because the time they have in the day to be at work is limited. Meanwhile I reap the benefits of having a well educated staff who appreciate being treated with this kind of respect for all aspects of their lives.
33
Workplace is one area of discrimination, but my ex-husband also discriminated against me for losing the income when my boss pro-rated my bonus the year I gave birth to my daughter. And yes, my boss was a woman.
We need this issue to be addressed as a core need of the workplace: men are rewarded for children and families, and women should be also. otherwise, we stand to lose out on the human race.
6
The simple truth is that women with children often do not do as much work as those without children, and their employers AND THEIR CO-WORKERS WHO HAVE TO DO THEIR WORK WHEN THEY LEAVE EARLY AND COME IN LATE know this! There is fundamentally no reason why the rest of a society ought to be forced to subsidize individual reproduction unless of course the government wants to some how reimburse employers and co workers who have to suffer loses and work over-time for no additional pay, because women choose to have children. But no that will never happen! Because our wealthy hate middle class Leftist intellectuals and democrats need to keep dividing our society into evermore warring special victim and privileged voting blocks so they can maintain control as the Maxist nobility that dispenses favors to those who remain slavishly loyal.
12
I would say parents, especially mothers, subsidize the rest of humanity with their effort to raise, shelter, feed, and educate their children for far less than what they are compensated for economically. It takes a village. ;^)
13
I've seen other articles dedicated to describing things like maternity leave programs, remote access to work resources, flexible hours, etc., but it is even more important to point out that fairness to mothers/would-be mothers does not need to become a hindrance to an employer's business. One of the reasons this form of discrimination is so pervasive is because it presents difficult questions requiring businesses, government and society at large to cooperate in the interests of fair public policy.
For instance, even atheists such as myself would probably consider it unconscionable to promote an atheists over a devout Christians on the logic that the atheists might be more willing to work weekends. Public policy considers whatever business advantage might be gained from such a practice to be far outweighed by the societal interest in not giving employers free reign to crackdown on someone who wants to go to church. Our laws reflect that collective prioritization and requires employees to make reasonable accommodations. The societal interest in not forcing women to make a binary choice between a career and motherhood is no less legitimate. A mother who truly cannot do a job is one thing, but preemptively taking opportunities from women on the basis of their motherhood/potential motherhood is simply unfair.
11
Our deep seeded mysogynism prevents us from acknowledging that motherhood isn't a deficit to be overcome. Motherhood is an asset to be exploited.
It takes time, but parenthood strengthens the mind, providing a richness of thought and approach, patience and creativity. Endeavors of great difficulty (parenting, learning Mandarin, climbing Kilimanjaro), provide the learner with enhanced skills and resources. The depth of our bias against mothers is revealed in the fact that none of these comments or the article articulate the main truth: that mother's are, in fact, more effective, organized, efficient and powerful than they were before having children.
Those that suggest parents are not efficient may be wise to examine the data, and then consider the innumerable causes of inneficiency in the workplace that have nothing to do with life outside the office.
19
Am I the only one uncomfortable with the "we need to keep the species going" argument presented in many of the comments here? World population numbers are certainly not in danger nor are American numbers, unless, as I suspect, commenters are concerned about *certain group* population numbers By all means have as many children as you like, but to claim you are doing it for the "good of society"? Doubtful, and frankly smacks of privilege and bias.
25
I can't follow the logic that no one should be having children. Who will take care of things once you are too old to do so (things including yourself, that is)? Siri?
5
Exactly, Joltan.
They are making a lifestyle choice, not performing a public service the rest of us should be grateful for.
I’d rather save an elephant, dolphin, whale or bee than subsidize global overpopulation and the further rape of this poor planet.
13
I’m so grateful to work for an organization that honors parents and caregivers in policy and practice. We adopted a Baby at Work policy so parents and caregivers can bring infants up to age 6 months to the office. We’ve had two “full-time” babies at the office since implementing the policy and both experiences were overwhelmingly positive for the team, the moms, and the babies. We shared the idea and so far two other organizations have adopted similar policies. If you’re curious about what having a Baby at Work policy looks like in practice, we’ve blogged about it here. https://www.seethegirl.org/?s=Baby
13
I don't think most people have any issues with working parents, being it moms or dads. Where the issue comes from are the ones who abuse this privilege and do not do their share of the work. When couples decide to bear a child they have to take all this into consideration, since this is your choice and decision.
23
I took on the largest administrative role, with the most responsibilities, in my academic department when my child was a toddler, and some people thought I was crazy (I don't recall anyone one thought that male colleagues who did the same were crazy). It worked out fine, thanks to my partner, good colleagues, and the somewhat flexible hours of academia. However, young women in my field still regularly conceal pregnancies and take off wedding rings when going on job interviews. Graduate students are fearful of telling their advisors--regardless of whether those advisors are radical feminists or old-fashioned conservatives--of their pregnancies. I advise both graduate students and junior faculty not to mention their children, pregnancies, or partners when applying for fellowships or jobs. The bias is so pervasive that we assume its there rather than not. Hiring departments fear, not unreasonably, that desperately needed new instructors will demand partner hires or family leave right off the bat. But the fears themselves are gendered and discriminatory. Too often we assume that women won't come or stay without their husbands getting good jobs, whereas men will come regardless. And there is an assumption that those babies and toddlers will hold back the women, not the men. In our case, I hired two women who immediately had babies and went on leave and both came back and have done very well.
13
I was on maternity leave twice when I had a high pressure job with long hours and travel obligations. In the months before each leave, I made organized lists of what I'd been working on, created coverage documents, and established priority. Then I sat down to discuss all of it with my manager so she could address my leave armed with information. In subsequent, less stressful roles, I got more grief than in the pressured environment. I worked my hours straight through, didn't go to lunch, and then left at my 'normal' time so I could get everything done before I went home to my second job as a mother. In every instance I was explicit with my managers about my hours, flex arrangements, scope of work, etc., and they agreed in writing. If you have an issue with your hours or workload, talk to your manager. I did.
5
I wish all the single, childless people complaining about covering for parent coworkers (and trust me, I was once a single childless person so I get it) need to target their resentment not at the parents but at either their management or, even better, our culture that offers so few supports for working parents and so much pressure on workers and businesses alike to "just make it all work." We are all so steeped in our culture's way of organizing both parenting and work, that we don't stop to really hone in on the source of the problem.
26
No one should be discriminated against however the employer should not be put in the position of subsidizing an individual decision to have a child. I have often observed in the workplace people expecting they should be permitted to come in late and leave early simply because they were parents. No one resents the occasional accommodation but when it is a habit it is unfair to all
11
I work in television and was fortunate enough to work on the same show as a freelancer for 6 years through 2 pregnancies and 2 maternity leaves. Like clockwork, I was in my office by 9:15 every morning after my nanny showed up (and usually before any other employee arrived). After my first baby was born, I was granted permission to leave at 5pm (standard out time was 6pm) so that I could go home when my nanny needed to leave. (I did this for 4.5 years and every single time I felt guilty as I walked out the door and all of my coworkers were still there.) I spent the last hour of the workday at home both tending my kids and answering any phone calls/emails that came from work. I worked nights and weekends. I never wanted anyone to think for one second that I wasn't doing my job, so I overcompensated and worked even harder. At almost the six year mark, a direct report of mine was given a title change that implied her position was above mine. When I went in to ask for a title change for myself, I was met with hostility and told that they had actually considered giving me a higher title. Hooray! But, that a higher title would be reserved for someone like X or Y who were consistently in the office until 7pm every day. That higher title would have meant more income and opportunity. I felt I was being punished for being a mother. The sick irony is that my male boss had twins the same age as my oldest child and commiserated with me about how difficult it was to raise small children.
19
One wonders if the person staying till 7 was actually working all those hours. I was self employed for many years and upon my return to working for organizations I was struck by how much time people wasted in their 8 or 8 hour shifts. Usually it was the people who complained the most about being over worked who wasted the most time.
9
But you admit you were leaving early every day and dividing your attention between kids and work 20 hours a month for years.
What if someone were phoning it in from the gym or their garden or their volunteer gig all that time? Would you see them as equally qualified for the title change? I bet not.
12
I have 4 children and rose to the top of my company - a Fortune 500 company - and traveled, worked long hours and covered for colleagues out on maternity leave. The commenters who claim women should stay home or are not willing to help out when someone needs it, may I remind you the children of today will be paying into your social security and medicare. Think long and hard when you slam a working mother, her children may be standing between you and penury.
24
Hogwash. We can import all the future SS payers we need.
And maybe we’d have more retirement savings if we got to pay the same low tax rates parents do, all these years. Kindly remember who funds YOUR perks and privileges.
9
I notice that many commenters seem to share the current bias that working mothers are less efficient, that they can't pull their own weight, and therefore shouldn't expect promotions. Studies indicate that working mothers are just as productive as childless employees. My own experience as a manager was that working mothers were often more dedicated because of their obligations. There is only one criterion that any employer should consider when deciding on a promotion or higher salary: Has this individual performed well for the company? If so, then whether she is a parent is irrelevant.
20
One of the problems might be that there is no consensus on how to measure "performed well." Hardworking people, parents or not, can have their efforts ignored or dismissed by managers who don't act in good faith, or use bias when evaluating work.
6
Female labor participation is essential to economic growth. Women are the only ones who can have babies. Ergo- it benefits us all to support working mothers. It's a really, really simple equation.
I have two little kids. I'm extremely grateful to my colleagues for covering my clients while I was out of the office on maternity leave. I try to ensure that the people on my team know that I believe that work-life balance applies to us all, not just those with kids at home. They know that when I leave the office at 4:30 to pick up my kids from daycare, I'm back at work (at home, at the kitchen table) as soon as those kids are in bed, and that that work gets done. Most women-and men- I know who are around my age operate this way. We want badly to be both professionally successful and good, present parents. It's pretty hard in this day and age, when the emails never stop and childcare is astronomically expensive. But we try our best to push through it.
14
I am grandmother now, and was a working single Mom for many years. This meant whatever it was, it all came down to me i.e. if I didn't do it, it would not get done, at home or at work. I became a quick learner, executed my duties accurately and efficiently the first time. So yes, being a working mom actually benefited my company. I had coworkers who worked longer hours produce less, and with little accuracy - so the ability to present 10 hours a day means nothing if the working mom who is there only 8 hours a day does more with superior quality! And despite my performance, the few times I needed to leave work because my child was injured at school (they never tell you to what degree) the first thing out of the supervisor's mouth is "when will you make up the time?" Really?! My child could be seriously injured, require surgery or hospitalization, I just don't know yet, and that is your response?
Today I am a supervisor/ manager of a department myself and I allow my employees, both male and female, to do whatever they need to do for their children. It is never an issue to leave early for a school play, or to pick up a sick kid. And you know what? I have one of the top performing teams at a Fortune 50 company!
When you treat others as you wish(ed) you were treated, the returns are ten fold. Every single person on my team is willing to go above and beyond when I ask, working very late into the evening if need be. You reap what you sow.
38
I like Ike has the prescription for good management. She knows what good management entails and that the pay-off is the employee who is there when needed.
"When you treat others as you wish(ed) you were treated, the returns are ten fold. Every single person on my team is willing to go above and beyond when I ask, working very late into the evening if need be. You reap what you sow."
I wasn't in HR when I made a similar suggestion in a Team Meeting at a $1 billion company perhaps 20 years ago. My reception was not ridicule, but polite bemusement (I was at a reasonably high level.)
6
The problem surely is the workplace culture that places expectations of nonsensical 'working' hours in order for people to 'get on'.
How much time in the workplace is WASTED in pointless meetings, pointless working parties and action plans that are poorly implemented? In my profession ( Education) it was well over 50%. Managers called meetings because they didn't know what else to do. Many people (Male and Female) allowed meetings to drift on past 5pm because they did not want to go home. Others insisted on meetings at 7am ( why, in God's name?) This devotion to 'presenteeism' is deeply discriminatory to any of us who do an excellent job but have other committments, whether these are children, parents or partners.
The idea that you cannot do a decent job unless you are prepared to make it your life is what's at fault here. How good a job someone is doing should be measured by standards other than how much time they spend in the workplace. No-one should be required to enslave themselves in order to progress.
That is what needs to change, for all our sakes.
31
No matter how independent one is at present, we have all have relied and will rely on others.
We were all once children who inconvenienced and burdened others, requiring sacrifices and patience from adults around us. None of us came out of the womb as autonomous individuals.
If we are lucky, we will be old people who will require the aid of the future workers and citizens who are children now.
Kicking and screaming about individual rights and obligations will not change these things. Those of us who are between these bookends of dependency would do well to remember this.
24
When a woman or a man makes a decision to have children and that decision reduces his/her effectiveness at work, it simply is not fair for others to have to pick up the slack for free.
29
The solution would be to be paid for the slack? By whom?
2
Golly gee, why don’t MEN who are fathers experience the same bias?!
6
A bit of selective fact sorting. Author cites one study to say there is a mommy penalty, and another say that there is a daddy premium. But if you actually read the first study, OK bored to tears on a long layover, it says that there is a daddy penalty as well as a mommy penalty and that in some aspected its worse than the mommy penalty.
I guess then the topic of the article would be the parenting penalty, which I guess dosn't support the working woman blog idea.
10
Having children is a choice and there are consequences for your choices. Why should I pay for your self-indulgent decision to have a kid, when there are already too many humans on the planet? If you want to stay on the fast track, don't have kids. I am not interested in turning cartwheels to accommodate your kid's illness, football game, school play etc. Or start your own business so you can run it as you see fit.
19
I think this is fair. However, another commenter on Times recently said the same happened to him when he became the sole caregiver for his ailing and aging mother. He chose not to marry or have children to give him all to his career; in the end, however, his career had no humanity to offer him in return. This conversation cannot be short-circuited by saying only parents require time for personal or family situations.
33
On a similar note, I can't tell you how many broken legs and chronic illnesses I've had to cover for over the years. You want to ski? Fine. But I'm not really interested in turning cartwheels to cover for you when you break your ankle in the course of your selfish pursuit. You want to spend the weekend in the tick-infested countryside? Again, your choice, but I am not interested in picking up the slack for your months-long battle with Lyme disease, okay?
Or, you know, crazy idea, we could maybe all try to be decent people who help one another during difficult times and try to be kinder? Life happens.
14
Well I am. I have never resented anyone for having children, taking care of their parents or leaving early to attend to family matters. Really, what a lack of solidarity and humanity! I am so glad I never had children in this country. This strange and frankly abnormal obsession with work is unbelievable and pretty sad.
11
About co-workers picking up the slack. Yes, my co-workers stepped in for me when I was out on maternity leave. Only, you know what? I wasn't born married with children. When I was single, I also stepped up to the bat for others who needed it - seven years' worth of not a single sick day, 9- to 12-hour days when we were short-handed, really, whatever it took.
And when I came back from leave, I didn't exactly start sitting in the office eating bonbons. Two months after I came back, I found out a coworker is seriously ill. I was getting some very tempting calls from recruiters, but I told them all to get lost because I knew how much extra work would fall on others' shoulders between her illness and me leaving. When others got sidelined by injury, I ran around to cover their meetings even though it meant staying up past midnight to finish my reports from home. When my department had to do an insane project that meant night work for anyone able-bodied, I was working nights with the rest of them - it just took more coordination on my end. Yes, I may have to drop everything and run from the office if a kid spikes a fever. So? I'll be the one reviewing my projects past midnight, not my single coworker.
34
Anybody who thinks that women in the work place will magically transform the ethics and morality of this country have another think coming. Remember the power behind the throne? You want some dirty business to happen, hire a man. The idea is to share responsibility not to blame the other.
Humanity evolves. This is truly the best of all possible worlds. But it is foolish to think that any demographic change, even as significant as this one, will lead us to promised land. It is a stage in a process that might leads us there, if we don't poison our home to death first.
1
A business exists to make a profit. if these women can't hack it let them go work for the government i.e. become teachers etc,
just become there is a law on the books does not make it a good law. if employers find the law burdensome they will look for a work around,
I read the study mentioned in the article that evidence to the contrary mothers are just as dedicated to their jobs as others. the study was biased by a group who were looking for a conclusion which supported their outlook.
read the study. it was nonsensical and biased, here is the link from NYT: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2012/are-mothers-non-ideal-employees
8
Keep fighting moms! That the blatant, unquestioned discrimination in the workplace I had to deal with 45 years ago STILL affects you—and from women! as well as men—makes me angry. Even today, remembering some of the really dumb, mean stuff that went on makes my heart hurt.
When do we march?
13
I am father to two children. I have seen many of my childless colleagues (male AND female) accomplish more in their careers than I can ever hope to simply because I don't have the amount of time to put into my job because of my children.
It's a situation of my own doing - there are only so many hours in a day. However, unlike those who refuse to do the basic math, I'm not crying discrimination - I realize I can't have my cake and eat it, too.
23
In the late-90s, I was passed over for a promotion at an ad agency because I had recently had a child. In a similar fashion to the author's account of presumed lack of interest in traveling for work and the like, my bosses assumed I wouldn't want the job and chose someone else instead of asking me about it first. The assumptions around women taking on the bulk of the child care isn't always the case. Some people have babysitters or nannies. Some have stay-at-home husbands. Some have grandparents who have stepped up to help.
The point is, it's not the company's business to decide for a working mom whether she has the time. Ask her. Let her make that call herself. If you're considering her for the role, clearly she is capable. It's completing galling to be patronized in this way, as if motherhood renders one incompetent.
23
Yes, this exactly! I shut down a couple of male colleagues today who were about to dismiss a potential director for a theater project because “she just had a baby and probably wouldn’t be interested.”
8
I was interviewing for a job and was told that they wanted to keep me working “short-term,” as a consultant, because “a new mom wouldn’t want the more demanding full-time position.” Yet, I was apply to work full-time and said so! They brushed my comment off. My kids, aged 2.5 and 1, were known to the company and interviewers.
A year later, they hired me for the full-time position, because the project was too short-staffed and was falling behind. It was obvious that they needed me, so I negotiated hard for a wage increase and flex-hours, which they accepted. I ultimately brought the project - and my career - back on-track.
19
When I first entered the workforce in 1981 there were interesting assumptions made by more than a few interviewers.
Because I was a young woman an interviewer at Yale asked me if I wanted to work there because my boyfriend was in school at Yale.
Because I was a woman it was assumed that I would marry and get pregnant.
Because I am a woman it's assumed that I have children and when I was younger, that the children must be toddlers or I was their main caretaker.
Because I was a woman I was told I should marry for economic security.
When my father was ill and I had to make some calls during working hours I was fired. (I found that out later from someone who was with the company.)
The simple assumption that a woman is a mother creates problems. So does the assumption that every young woman will marry and have children and therefore be useless afterwards. Men get kudos for picking the children up from school or being by the wife's side when she gives birth. Women get nothing. If both parents are important why aren't men taking leave and why are women automatically penalized for their potential to become parents?
26
To me, the choice to have children is no different than any other hobby, nor should it be treated as such. I'd love to have some paid leave to pursue my hobbies. A woman I work with pumped breast milk three times a day for 30+ minutes a pop for a YEAR. So 90 minutes of breaks per day while I had only my 30-minute lunch. It's hard not to resent that situation. I'd love to have 90 minutes of break time per day to do whatever. There should be no double standard just because someone has reproduced.
23
Some hobbies perpetuate the species and accomplish a basic evolutionary imperative, some lead people to complain about former colleagues on the internet.
Insofar as the majority of people choose to have children, and 100 percent of people are the beneficiaries of their parents doing so, a workplace culture that is unfriendly to mothers is regressive and backwards. and ultimately will simply cost companies the lion's share of talented female applicants, who will go to competitors with better policies in place, or will make different career choices altogether to accommodate the more important part of their life.
15
I pumped 90 minutes a day and also worked an extra hour every day, if not more (pumped during the required 30 minute lunch break, that’s the other 30). I worked 7-4:30 or later to make this work. Are you sure your company is offering paid pumping time? That would be highly unusual.
Ps, I did get plenty of resentful comments and was happy to set the record straight. I also did quite a bit of editing while I was pumping, which I would have been doing at home otherwise. We were hired to get the job done and I did.
14
Depending on the job, pumping is not that big a "break". One can read or write reports, do research on the computer, return e-mails, etc. while pumping. Only a physically demanding job or one requiring face-to-face with live customers and all times would really be an issue.
9
It's basic math: we all have the same 24 hours to spend each day, and children monopolize a lot of time, so it follows people without children will have greater career success because they have more time to focus on their careers.
10
Actually, it's less to do with basic math and more to do with time management + how much money you have for childcare. How much time does the average American worker spend on social media (or, you know, reading the New York Times, shout-out to all my fellow commentators taking time to read this article at 4:30pm on a Thursday!) on any given day?
Parents of young children are extremely efficient and extremely focused, because we have to be. Parents who have sufficient resources to afford good childcare have more time than parents who don't. So no, "people without children will have greater career success b/c 24 hours in a day" isn't automatically the equation here.
22
My aunt was a Rosie the Riveter sort, hired & trained by an air force base to cut & install glass in aircraft during the Korean War. She saw some bloodstained cockpits that left a lasting impression on her.
In other jobs on the base, she was more than willing to help cover for pregnant & young mothers & knowing her, would have been very disappointed not to get thanks.
She cared for her aging mother after a late marriage when she neared 40. She & her husband cared for a couple of her brothers with health problems as well.
A good deal of her income was spent on others. They don't make them like that any more.
9
Thankfully, the social pressure that women should always sacrifice themselves for others is lessening to some extent.
3
As the daughter of a working mother, I can speak to about form of harassment that mothers face-going back to work too soon.
Because both of spent my parents worked, my sister and I spent our childhood at daycare, to the chain of my aunts.
My mother told me a few years ago about how she was shamed (by her own sisters) for going back to work and putting us in daycare when we were infants.
Women seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
26
Several of these comments appear to imply that the mother on maternity leave is free-loading off her coworkers, who all work extra hours to take up her slack. I don't know about you all, but I do NOT receive paid maternity leave (nor do most people in the U.S., last I heard). Furthermore, nobody takes up my slack because my company hires a temporary replacement while I'm gone. In fact, I'm baffled as to why a company that does not pay maternity leave (and again, most do not) would NOT hire temporary replacements. My conclusion is either a) these companies are not good places to work or b) those who are complaining about having to take up extra slack had the slack time to begin with. If they didn't, they would have told their supervisors and the supervisors would have hired a temporary replacement. So, quit complaining (and man, there's a lot of complaining in these comments) and either talk to your supervisor or go get a new job.
26
I don't think the issue is just maternity leave. It's mothers who come back to work but then frequently work short hours.
5
My, my, such anger at pregnant women and working mothers. Who, exactly, do these whiny, resentful childless people harboring such animus toward those of us who reproduce think will float their Medicare and Social Security down the road? Where twill the taxes come from to support these things when they are no longer working? Don't they have one small philosophical bone in their body that athey can tickle to make them realize we're all in this together?
Apparently not. All they offer is the old saw that pregnant women and working mothers aren't pulling their weight and (sob sob) they have to make up for that--along with a few tired anecdotes about women slacking off.
Please. Here's my anecdote: I may have leaned on colleagues more when I was pregnant and faced caring for a young child, but, thank you very much, over the long haul I outperformed every single one of the people I ever worked with, and guess what? I covered for more than one childless person who broke a leg or had chronic bad back.
I'd like to attribute this attitude to the selfishness unleashed by the over-the-top selfish and self-absorbed Trump Administration, but when I think about it, America's libertarianism has been rearing its ugly head since its founding.
42
You can attribute it to the immature, whiny mothers, who feel they are entitled to have it all, not their childless co-workers. I say this as a working mom who would not have dreamed of shifting my work to others or complaining about how hard it is to be a working mom and that America should bow down to me because my children will be paying their Social Security benefits (as if). You would not believe the number of young mothers I've encountered who actually believe they should be able to work part time, on their schedules, for full pay and benefits.
21
As a Boomer, I've paid into Social Security all my life instead of being able to invest that part of my income for retirement, which I could probably have done more effectively. And as a woman, I only get half my husband's Social Security even though I've always worked full time. No freeloading here.
2
I've never met any young mothers who thought they should be able to work part-time for full pay and benefits. Where did you meet these women?
2
Systemic adjustments:
Meaningful paid leave for personal and family illness.
Mandatory pay to the rest of the department or a mandatory temp.
Meaningful, affordable childcare everywhere.
Meaningful, affordable eldercare.
Meaningful health insurance so family members don't have to quit to take care of someone who can't get a nurse.
Societal adjustments:
Work is work, not social hour, and we are not here to be friends, share baby pictures, or talk about last night's drunken shenanigans.
Everyone has a right to say "can we get back to work, please?"
People have a right not to have kids.
People have a right to have kids.
No one gets to shame or lord it over other people for different personal choices, or demand to know what those personal choices are.
People stop being so damned competitive about their personal societal contributions, and just grow some darn empathy already.
And for the love of god, park your bicycles, backpacks, dogs, shopping bags and baby strollers out of the main lanes of traffic.
25
We moved for my husband's job after we had our son (NY to CT). I went for a job interivew at a major ivy league university. I made the mistake of mentioning my son during the phone call to arrange an interview time. The first question I was asked at the interview was, "How many children do you have and are you the primary caregiver?". I learned my lesson...don't talk about the kids.
41
"Mothers with young children are running for office in higher numbers than ever, challenging the conventional wisdom that voters aren’t comfortable with electing women with young kids at home. Some are even breast-feeding their babies in their campaign ads, which is an unmitigated triumph for normalizing nursing. "
To me, that sounds like a huge step *backward* for women. If a woman can't be separated fom her baby long enough to shoot a campaign ad, what else will fall by the wayside?
Would a man be applauded for feeding a baby in a campaign ad? Bringing a baby to Congress? Feeding the baby during a vote, or while giving a speech?
7
He'd get father of the decade award and a pay raise.
11
Actually, such men would be applauded. It would separate them from our current president, who has bragged about never feeding or diapering or even taking to the park any of his five legitimate children.
10
I believe they were making a point with the action, especially the candidate who was involved in work with BPA. Another article in the Times mentions that a female candidate recently challenged and won the right to use campaign contributions to pay childcare - meaning she is taking the time to campaign without her children. The only other model is independent wealth allowing a parent with small children to pay for childcare out of pocket or a family member who quits work or works part time to provide primary childcare - something women have done for centuries and received so very little credit for.
1
When I was in the Army, I volunteered to go to Iraq with another unit that needed a few extra people because their mission had been changed from petroleum supply to base defense and they needed more warm bodies. I was assigned as Sergeant of the Guard over a string of perimeter towers, and had two particular soldiers newly under me that were eligible to go to a promotion board. They were strangers to me, so I studied their records. One was a young man who had spend his four years in the Army volunteering for one deployment after another. The other was a young women, a cook, who had never deployed before, but had instead spent her four years having three babies and studying for the promotion board while on light duty. I chose the young man and was over ruled by my superiors, who knew the soldiers better. As it turned out the young man was lazy and not very bright, while the young woman turned out to be very smart and a good leader. I made my choice based on fairness, not results, and I was wrong. But such consequentialism can cut both ways. If we're going to do it, we need to do it all the time.
10
Was "deployed" from my leadership position while on maternity leave 16 years ago and they tried to give me a temporary position as a replacement. Then, they figured out their massive mistake and tried to get me to sign a letter written in my voice saying I wasn't interested in leadership positions- despite never having voiced such a sentiment and being highly rated. I told them I couldn't sign the letter as it wasn't reflective of my "experience" and I wanted to be "treated like everyone else is treated." Eventually got a package and three job offers. That kind of discrimination certainly was casual- even from this fortune 100.
3
The cost of these benefits should be borne by the taxpayers, not by employers, should they not?
1
when I was in graduate school I became pregnant, intentionally, and took a semester off. the male graduate director said "I had a baby when I was in grad school and I didn't take any time off."
then at my first faculty job, all the other women faculty in the business school had either zero or one child. I had twins and got pregnant again, intentionally. my dean said I could have an unpaid year off but he was also going to cut off my health insurance. my department chair explained to him that under COBRA even an employee who wasn't coming back had to be able to stay in the health plan.
around this time I went to a workshop for female faculty in my discipline. the session on work-life balance was led by one senior woman who was single and another who was married and had never had kids. it was very depressing.
10
All these comments complaining about working mothers who don't focus on work and expect colleagues to pick up the slack go a long way to prove Ms Goldstein's point.
One wonders what the dads of all these children are doing?
Ah, of course. They are working long hours, getting to work early and leaving late, taking calls on weekends and traveling for work while mysterious unseen hands raise their children, feed them, and care for them. It's like magic!
Women, be more like men. Neglect your kids and ignore your home life. Outsource the labor of child-rearing to the other parent and / or to underpaid women in daycare centers. Then the pernicious problem of anti-mother bias in the workplace will soon disappear.
Or how about we stop having children altogether? Better that, than to face the monstrous prospect of our capitalist world having to change to accommodate human life.
83
I do think we have a new generation of young fathers who are fully involved in child-rearing. When my granddaughter was born, my son-in-law took paid family leave; my daughter didn't. The old stereotypes are changing because young couples are changing them.
3
This posting is offensive. I worked long hours as the sole financial support of three children AND shouldered approximately 50% of the work of raising three children, including night-time duties. Sometimes working 60-70 hours/wk. Boy was I tired a lot of the time. I know lots of dads like this.
5
It is flabbergasting how many comments seem to have the condescending view that motherhood is some parttime job, or even a leisure activity! It takes time and dedication to do it right. If you choose to raise a child it comes with an enormous investment of time and money. However, as a parent know it also gives back what is by far the most valuable in life: see your kids grow up to be good adults. How can anybody think they can do this tremendous job and at the same time compete at equal level with people that do not have that workload? How many mothers would hire another mother for babysit?
Should men do more? How do people see this? We can neither force women to bear children nor can we mandate men to do more in the household work. Clearly women have the upper hand in child bearing and most women also have the higher inclination in child rearing. Get over it.
That said, I feel that a society without children has no purpose. (At least a short live one.) It would be terribly sad if women en masse decided to stop bearing children. Since I expect this feeling to be widespread society should bear much more of the cost of child rearing than it does today. I never felt that women were suppressed by society but I do think choosing for motherhood has a high cost that society should compensate. Foremost by stop depreciating motherhood as feminism is doing but also making sure that the financials in a marriage are evenly shared even if the marriage breaks up.
8
There are so many important points in this post, but it boils down to, "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Mothers have the unpaid job of raising small, helpless little baby humans into functioning adults, who are hopefully of good character, and can contribute positively to society. It is a really tough job.
The time lag between the time and energy and compassion a mother invests and the end result is around 20 years--truly a long-term investment. Too often we don't plan ahead, whether in politics or economics, but a mother must plan ahead as much as a quarter of a century.
A society that envisions a future needs to invest in mothers now, just as mothers invest in their children, regardless of their employment status outside the home.
I hope that Ms. Goldstein's opinion piece today gets this discussion rolling beyond the world of journalism. As a new grandmother, I invite other grandmothers to add their voices.
3
I think the author is simply saying that we should shed our prejudices about mothers and treat them like any other employee. She's arguing that a woman should decide whether she has the time to devote to a new position rather than having her employer make that decision for her. I agree with her--we should stop making assumptions about people based on externalities and judge them by their efforts. When I was young there was a widespread belief that men should be paid more because they had to support families. Today we realize that women also need to support families, and that not every mother is constrained by childcare needs. I do agree that we as a society should emulate other Western democracies and value parenthood by instituting paid family leave, subsidized quality childcare, and universal preschool. I really wish that the New York Times would fix its software so that commenters could use paragraphs.
1
Sorry, I have had no children and given how overpopulated the planet is, that was a wonderful thing I did for society and the environment. If you choose to have kids, I'm not taking responsibility for them.
2
I believe there have been major strides in rectifying the bias against pregnancy in the workplace. We still have a ways to go. However, the idea that a pregnant woman is “less competent and committed to her work” is that same thing older workers of both genders hear in the workplace or when applying for jobs. Both need to be fixed.
11
Most workers who have obligations that make it hard for them to stay late (whether parental duties, classes, walking the dog, whatever) either come in early, work through lunch, work on the train or at home, or some combination thereof. I find that the supervisors (and the young singles) are rarely in before 8:30 or 9:00, and they don't see all the pre-7AM folks at work. And then you get sneers about people "rushing out at 5PM", even though they put in as long or longer a day than the folks who work to 6 or 7PM (after rolling in at 9AM).
30
Absolutely, I start work at 4 a.m. before my children get up and well before my colleagues start working.
6
I am so very glad that you are writing this article and that you are opening it up for comments. Sexual discrimination is very serious and yet relatively rare. Most male colleagues and bosses are NOT predators and do not sexually harass. BUT motherhood discrimination is hugely prevalent. It starts with the stress of maternity in the workplace and the lack of flexible work arrangements. It goes on to a nice boss saying "go home to your kids" when he means to be nice and in fact is operating based on gender bias. It continues with a boss promising work life balance rather than a raise to a female employee, because he knows she craves balance more than anything. And it goes on and on and on. In my team, the hardest working employees are women of young children. Call it the compensation effect. I am nauseated to see how lazy, inefficient and undisciplined the guys are in my office. I am shocked at how many excuses companies have to not provide working mothers more recognition, more training, more support. They are my modern day heroes. Yes we need a momtoo movement.
16
I am an absolute machine at work now that I have two kids and no time to spare. You want to get something done quickly, correctly, and with a minimum of idle chit chat? I'm your woman. If I had been this efficient in my 20's, I would have conquered the world by now.
Still, I've gotten some awful comments here and there. The boss who told me I'd need to "prove myself" the day I came back from maternity leave (I did). The younger coworker who didn't roll into the office until 10 am but was annoyed he couldn't find me at 6:15.
Everyone has stuff to juggle. Let's be a little more kind to each other.
113
I am celebrating 48 years in the workforce this year. Decades of covering maternity leaves (double work, not a nickel more in pay). Staying late, working holidays, shouldering more than my share. All for other people's life decisions. It si what it is but no tears from me.
11
What about the rampant age discrimination against women in the workplace? While it is wrong to discriminate against gender, color or sexual orientation, it seems workplace age discrimination consistently goes unpunished and many times rewarded when higher-paid older employees seem to vanish the fastest during layoffs. The excuse is its harder to prove, but is it really or does corporate America turn a blind eye?
23
There is age discrimination against men too. Age discrimination is definitely a workplace issue that should be tackled.
3
Several years ago my daughter was a community center director in a West Texas city, a position she had held prior to her marriage. In her early 20's , she was one of the youngest directors in the city, and was repeatedly singled out by her superiors as a rising star. She developed new and creative programs for children and seniors who frequented her center, including "Daddy / Daughter" and "Mommy / Son" holiday parties, a city-wide Easter Egg hunt with major corporate sponsors, and programs combining children and seniors for multi-generational activities. She was a top "revenue" generator over the other three community centers for two years straight, exceeding all goals set. Following the birth of her first child, she maintained the same high achievement levels, continuing to exceed prior years' goals. Then she became pregnant with her second child. Though her energy and performance remained at high levels, her supervisor took great pains to denigrate her in staff meetings, suggesting this pregnancy was a mistake, that she needed to consider whether she really was capable, etc. Her supervisor was a woman. After the birth of her son, the snide comments and undercutting continued apace until finally she and her husband decided they could manage without her income from this job for a while. So she gave up a dream job, one she loved and was good at, because the support had dried up. Big loss to the citizens of that Hub City.
18
Stories like this one make me furious. No one in a position of authority should have his or her brain in the 1950s or be allowed to get away with this kind of harrassment.
6
Or, maybe you only heard her side of it and, in fact, her energy was no longer as good and the agency needed fresh blood.
1
Too bad I didn't get the same consideration under the law. Like many men, I had to take care of my family. My wife had progressive MS and died a few years ago. I had to juggle work and care and it was a huge burden. My company paid lip service, but got rid of me when I turned 55.
Anti mom bias, anti care bias and anti age bias are all open secrets.
32
Soooo tired of the specious "you should be grateful our kids will pay your social security and medicare" justification for perks for procreators. No, THEY should be grateful to me and people like me.
As a single, chidlfree person in her 50s Ihave been in the taxpaying workforce for more than 35 years; in that time I have paid into the following programs/subsidized the following tax credits that IN NO WAY benefit my own demographic, including: dependent deduction, child tax credit, dependent care credit, earned income tax 'credit', higher premiums for employer sponsored ins that disproportionately pays out to childed, SS and medicare that disproportionately benefits minors, survivors, widows, stay-home spouses, disabled children. WIC, SNAP, TANF, Section 8, Medicaid, USDA school nutrition program, early childhood education(free daycare) funding, family courts (divorce/child custody), the foster system, etc. And that is just scratching the surface.
My family has paid prop taxes on a cottage for nearly 80 years without ever using the school system, police, fire, water or sewerage of that community. I have paid prop taxes for 35 years in my community without using most of the above, or the parks and rec andl ibraries that benefit "families."
The list goes on and on. We the mature childfree are the cash cows of just about EVERY program that benefits "younger people" and they had better gratefully and cheerfully contribute to our well-being when the time comes.
37
While I’m no longer in the workforce, I repeatedly heard this exact comment made by childless women against moms. The good thing was that it was not commen, but reflected the same kind of petty jealousy that exists in rare situations throughout an office environment when employees try to compare what their situation is with others. For sure, life, taxes, employment, can all be perceived as fair or unfair depending on ones personal situation. My biggest concern is that we seem to have become a country that revels in attacking others rather that realizing the wonderful benefits we all have.
7
I imagine that part of the reason government sanctioned programs are necessary is due to those among us who view any contribution to the common good as unfair infringement on personal property rather than part of our obligation as participants in the US social contract.
My partner and I earn in the top 3%, and pay lots of taxes (yet we are not at all rich ). Further, we send our children to private school, so we do not use public education. Yet I am fine with what we pay because we have more than we fundamentally need to survive and we have benefitted from living in such a prosperous nation.
14
What about a social contract to not further destroy the environment by thoughtless, egotistical, selfish and unnecessary reproduction?
When we the "village" get a say in who breeds, when and how often, perhaps we will have less resentment toward our outsize role in funding subsidies for your lifestyle choices.
1
The resentment of women commenters here who have had to cover for mothers is telling about our cultural priorities. Perhaps if historically we had valued the work of women more, there wouldn't be so many women going to work, not interested in having children and resentful of people who do have children. I am not taking either side on this, and I regret it that women end up in conflict over this issue, primarily because our society values our children so little when you come right down to it. I say this as a woman who has never had children. I say 'our' children, because if we were a more civilized culture we would value young people more, both the care of them and their education, recognizing that they are the future of the country.
20
There are children all over the world who are the "future of our country." We don't need to further subsidize homegrown ones, even more than we already do, at the expense of the childfree.
Some of us are concerned about the "future" (if any) of species other than human beings, you know.
13
I'd resent just as much covering for a man not carrying his share of the workload and dumping undesirable work on me.
9
I also support more immigration and adoption.
But that wouldn't absolve you of a responsibility to pay taxes for public education, etc. It is a necessary party of any democracy. Do you oppose democracy?
So backwards and upsidedown - the thinking - because - women who have dependents are so much more committed to their jobs than women who have no dependents. For me it was the case.
6
One of the many reasons I decided not to have children. Reproduction is a raw deal for women.
12
Thank goodness you had that choice. Work to vote out of office those reprehensible anti-choice politicians that want to force women to have children.
2
Katherine Hepburn was right for most of us, you can’t have it all. There are a few exceptional people their quality of work compensates for when they must tend to family life. But for most of us, men and women, if you must leave at five every day, it means you may not be available to handle Late emergencies. Who should the promotion go to?
9
Men have families and careers, and no one accuses them of "trying to have it all."
It's completely unfair to make a woman choose between family and career when a man expects to have both.
19
I don't get why patenthood is such a sacred cow, especially in the workplace. Becoming a parent reduces your effectiveness at work. That is a fact. You get less sleep, you have to leave early to pick up kids, stay home when they are sick, etc. All for a life choice that makes you happy.
I, however, happen to love heroin. Heroin rules. Heroin makes me happy. It also decreases my effectiveness at work. Yet for this personal choice I can be fired. In the meantime, parents continue to accrue rights protecting their horrible life choices.
Nope, I don't get it.
10
The world can live without heroin addicts or gaming enthusiasts or any of a number of time consuming diversions.
We cannot survive without parents, who perform this service, spending countless $'s, for no reward but the joy of providing another generation.
8
I totally agree with you - parenthood is revered where I work. People who have kids circle up, moan about how "hard it is" daily. And, as you say, parents are calling in sick more, late more, and leaving early more often. They are less productive. But god-forbid anyone ever mention that.
12
"To be totally honest, isn't the issue also that a first pregnant and then new mom - and no, not new dads - is going to be less productive, need more time off and have more upheaval in her schedule? Just facts here."
NO, THOSE ARE NOT FACTS. Those are the definition of opinions. I'm a new mom. I worked until the day I went into labor and I only took 4 weeks off. I'm not superwoman, I just like my job and had a lot of support from my husband. He took off 4 months of paid leave. He does pick up and drop off. The fact is, I care more about my career than he does. Stop assuming it's going to be the other way around.
It seems like all of the "Times Picks" for this article are highlighting comments that miss the point of this article entirely by taking the view that of course mothers - and not fathers - are going to be less productive. Show me the EVIDENCE that new mothers are less productive. Just one shred of evidence, please. You can't fire a group of people because of your biased opinion.
My experience is that new parents are insanely productive because we don't have time to waste.
37
Discrimination of this kind is wrong. Plain and simple.
But parents choose to have kids, and then get paid family leave for that?
I don't resent that, but why can't I get paid leave to work on a personal project, or take a bike trip?
Everyone should get 3 months of paid leave every few years.
Use it as you like.
21
Most new parents do not get three months paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. As a full time professional, I used a combination of vacation and sick time to have four of the 12 weeks of my maternity leave paid. The remaining 8 weeks was taken without pay. Many woman do not have the financial support to take 8 weeks unpaid maternity leave so they return to work more quickly. Please don't suggest that mothers somehow get paid time off that the childless don't get. This is simply untrue for most working women with children.
13
And there should be limits on what employers are liable for. Pumping out three kids in four years and expecting three months off for each is absurd.
Let's give every employee one three-month period off in every five years of employment. You want more than that, save up for it out of your own pocket. Or do without.
13
Because we need a next generation. Kids are expensive, demanding, and well worth it. But without at least a bit of help from the rest of society, even more of our children will be poor.
4
I have no doubt this is a problem, and it is shameful. On the flip side, as a woman with no children, I have been discriminated against in other ways. I had to be the one to stay late or attend evening business events because others (women and men) needed to pick up their kids at daycare. Extensive travel has been forced upon me because "she doesn't have family - travel isn't an issue for her." Extra responsibilities because others are on maternity or paternity leave. Extra business trips because someone else had a kid event, sick child ... the list goes on.
My point: Bias comes in many forms, and we all need to do better to recognize and avoid it in the workplace -- and everywhere.
29
I sympathize with your article and the mothers who have experienced discrimination. But I think your article is overstated. All of my experience, both personal and professional, points the opposite way. I have been an employment lawyer for more than thirty years. I handle discrimination and harassment cases. My law firm began a program to give leave to and then reintegrate mothers into partner-track positions about 25 years ago. Partner track -- not associate, not of-counsel. Our female lawyers were no less valuable than our male lawyers. In addition, we train our clients to handle pregnancy seamlessly. I can't recall a single case of pregnancy or "sex-plus" discrimination (in this circumstance gender plus motherhood) even being brought against one of our clients much less won.
On a personal level, as a husband (of fifty years) and a father whose children were born when my wife worked for a mega-company, my wife asked her employer in 1973 (pregnant with our first) how long she could take off for her pregnancy. He replied: as long as you need. She took off four months and returned to work without missing a beat or a pay check.
Have we been fortunate? You bet. But I'll also bet that those of us who have had good fortune are about as numerous as those who have suffered discrimination.
4
To those who complain that mothers really *are* a drain on the workplace (with their obnoxiously long maternity leaves & sick kid sick days...), enough with the complaining! I cover for my co-workers with an elderly parent is ill, when they themselves need surgery, when they have an opportunity to take a well-deserved vacation, when they get a job-growth opportunity that takes them away from their typical job duties. Sure, these things do not happen all at once such that someone is gone for the equivalent of a six-month maternity, but it’s often more unexpected & more of a scramble to cover for co-workers in these situations.
We are all human & our lives usually do not progress neatly down a predictable, linear path, much as we would like them to. Moms & women are no different than dads or childless folks in the workplace. We care about our jobs & want to do them well. Some of us have second shift issues, but we typically bury those pretty well... so well, in fact, that we’d rather run ourselves into the ground than let on that we’re struggling.
We need not only less discrimination but more humanity in our workplaces.
24
Yes, NSF, but parents want time off for the kids AND when they have surgery, when their parents are ill, etc. etc. -- you always end up taking more than the rest of us get.
And frankly I find that people in my white-collar arena don't "bury" their family issues. Nary a day goes by without some disruption due to someone's sick kid, "childcare issues" and other failure to plan and have backup in place.
12
I was always denied time off (we're talking maybe every few months) to see my medical specialist (who had no evening or weekend hours). In the meantime, I saw my co-workers with kids bounce out of the office--with the blessings and/or encouragement of management to see little Johny play baseball or little Sue in her kindergarten recital--no restrictions on making the time up.
As for me, I was passed over for promotions while the mother who constantly called in (or didn't even bother to call in) and not show up for hours because of a "child matter" made MUCH more money than me, in a lesser position and was given a pass. I was constantly grilled about why I needed this (necessary) medical appointment. Duh! It kept me in the work force and away from disability.
3
Kosher Dill, life happens. Whether you have kids or not. A child-free worker can be chronically ill. A worker who is a parent can have a kid who barely ever gets sick. My point is that life is unpredictable. You cannot count on a child-free employee being any more or less of a productive worker than one who is a parent. The tit-for-tat score keeping on who takes more time is counterproductive.
6
The word is not "childless" it is "childfree". We are not any less because we choose not to have kids. And we are usually the ones who get worked dumped on us by those who have kids so they can leave early for school programs, activities, sick kids etc. because we don't have the responsibility of kids. That in itself is also a form of discrimination.
16
Point well taken regarding “child-free” being preferable to “childless.”
I disagree though with the notion that child free workers are constantly covering for workers who are parents. If scheduling isn’t working for everyone, then that is a management problem, not an issue with your coworkers.
It’s really unfortunate that this issue pits child-free employees against coworkers who are mothers & parents. It shouldn’t be “us vs. them” but recognition of systemic issues that affect everyone. The fact is that the American workplace doesn’t (usually) allow for life outside of work, no matter what that life looks like.
7
And the worst part about when the parents at my workplace do this is that they aren't even sorry. They seem to think, "Oh, Arthur doesn't have kids, so its no big deal for him to stay late and take care of my work while I tend to my child's 98.7 degree fever."
No! I have drugs I need to go do!
3
I've seen just the opposite where I've worked for nearly 30 years. The mothers in our office have gotten preference over us single childless ladies. Bad weather? Mom get to leave first they get priority. OT...moms again. Not that their situations may not warrant the privilege but we single Ladies out there deserve a break as well.
14
Funny how a difference is always assumed to be discrimination (at least when it supports the viewer) and equality assumed to be nondiscrimination. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Just having a difference is only evidence of correlation, not causation.
Maybe fathers make more because they apply themselves harder; maybe it is discrimination against non-parental men. But just stating a statistical difference does not evidence discrimination (nor does statistical equality evidence no discrimination).
This article, other than anecdotes, presents no actual evidence of discrimination, just difference. The problem with that is one cannot prove much less remedy discrimination without detailed evidence. Why is there a difference? What illegal biases are being acted upon, by whom? What data should be collected? What rules must be put in place or changed?
Real leadership is much more difficult than just complaining.
5
"In The Upshot, Claire Cain Miller highlighted a range of research showing that the earnings of women who have children during the prime childbearing years of 25 to 35 never recover relative to their husbands’."
Do you mean to tell me that taking time off from work lowers your overall earnings over your career? I am shocked. Shocked! It's almost as if we have built a system where seniority tends to determine compensation, and therefore where if you have less seniority, your compensation will tend to be lower...
Discrimination against pregnant women and mothers is a real thing, but this is a textbook example of a terrible way to illustrate it using bad statistics.
9
And funny how they never seem to account for the "joys" of parenthood that one would think offset their career sacrifices.
The tradeoffs are well-known and have been for many decades. If you don't want to make them, don't have kids. If you want to be a parent, don't expect the rest of us to ameliorate everything else for you, at our own expense. We chose the other path in life, and you could have, too.
11
It seems that a lot of these problems could be solved if working dads started picking up some of the child-rearing work that working moms are expected to. If parents shared the burden of raising kids and more dads had to leave a little early to pick up a sick kid, there wouldn't be as much of a stigma against moms.
20
I worked for a company that fired any woman who got pregnant, including me. None of us wanted to fight because we had so much to deal with already that to us it wasn't worth the fight.
4
This discrimination is real and seems to be an unconscious bias, at least in my case. I was recently told by senior management for whom I have worked both pre- and post-children: "you know we consider you a high performer, but we did not put you in a high responsibility role because you have had other priorities". Yet I have the same commitment, manage the same workload and physically work the same number of hours now that I did before I had children. I am extremely fortunate to have supportive, loving and stable child care and as a result have not missed a single day of work in 4 years to care for a sick child. Perception is everything. I now need to work even longer hours than I did previously to demonstrate that I am as committed to my job as I was before I had children. Men in my department who have children are not faced with the same bias.
15
The bias is anti anyone who does not pull their weight. A lot moms don't. It's the truth despite the self appointed PC police saying otherwise.
10
Only in America, do people speak of working mothers as entitled or expecting special treatment for having children. Its is disgraceful how people justify their discrimination against working mothers. Its never looking at the greater good, its always "what about me?" Its horrifying, but not surprising.
16
Women who don't have children are discriminated against in other ways. Let's be respectful of all lifestyle choices. Also, not being paid extra for covering for a new Mom or Dad is one thing but last time I checked just saying, "thank you" was free.
6
Tina, I've got an idea: How about you and about a million other would-be moms here in the US vow to NOT have children -- for the great good, you know?
Think of the reduction in your carbon footprint -- and all the disposable diapers that won't hit the landfill, all the animals that won't be tormented and killed to feed your non-existent offspring, all the fossil fuels they won't burn for heat and light and transporation, all of the other societal resources they won't use -- from public assistance to health care to education to the family courts system.
The list of "greater goods" you would contribute to by NOT reproducing is gigantic -- and the benefits are automatic! Unlike when you roll the dice and produce a kid that might grow up to be OK, or might grow up to be an addict, a criminal, of low intelligence, unemployable, a teen parent, a deadbeat parent, or just an overall dud.
Instead of saying "what about me? I want to have kids and therefore I deserve your support!" how about "looking at the greater good" and refraining?
It goes both ways, you know.
7
If those with kids think they are being discriminated against they need to read 'The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless,'' by Elinor Burkett. Those who think they should receive special treatment for having kids need to realize those who are getting their extra work dumped on them because they are either single or "childfree" and considered "not to have a family at home" need to be compensated in some way as well, and companies need to realize this as well to level the playing field.
17
I work in a office where 16 out of 17 workers are women. Of that staff, 11 are mothers, and in the last 4 years we have had 2-3 women out on maternity leave at a time. They usually are out sick 5-6 times during the first 6 months, and go on leave in the 8th month. They return to work 6-9 months later;most of the time on 100%-80% pay. Their positions are not filled; everyone else is expected to do their work while they are on leave. When they return, there are lactation stations on each floor. They have tablets at their desk to facetime with their kids, and can leave at the drop of a hat to go home.
The same treatment is unfortunately not given if you are off work due to cancer, or have been in an accident; the union chose only to bargain for maternity benefits only. I was out 51 days after an accident broke my shoulder and kneecap- I had my pay reduced after 32 days. No lactation stations , time off, or anything not required by law. If I was an employer, I would try really,really, hard not to have this many women who take off this much of the time. Spare me the tears...
14
I think the proper analogy is the National Reserve or the military. If someone is called away on a deployment, whether sudden or expected, employers are required not to discriminate against them for a certain period of absence. managers must accommodate reservists as a cost of business, give them back the job they rely on when they return, not ask stupid questions or wildly speculate about that person's motives and life priorities (they might care about something other than work!), and just wish them well, welcome them back, and deal with a cost of supporting an advanced society that we all can and should figure out together.
51
These comments are very helpful because it reminds me that HR’s client is not the employee, it is the corporation. If I ever face anything like this discrimination directly, I will create my paper trail in HR but my next stop will be an attorney.
30
Whoa. The resentment and visceral anger toward working mothers is tangible in the comments section. And, overall, so depressing. It says so much about our society on multiple levels.
Remember, most women aren't parenting alone. Where is this resentment toward working fathers? All workers complaining about sharing the load were once children who were parented. Those younger doctors taking care of you? That delivery man bringing you pizza when you are overworked and tired and picking up all those hours for those lazy working mothers? He was once a kid, too. And parented more than likely by a working mom.
I'm just saddened. We think we've come so far as a society when it comes to equality in the workplace and then...this comment section...
157
Totally agree. It's depressing. The comments are misogynist and full of confirmation bias. If any of these folks become parents, they are in for a rude awakening. The idea of parents and pregnant women getting a free ride is so absurd.
12
Agree. The resentment and jealousy in these comments is very disturbing.
In the US we don't do family friendly, we do business friendly. If you are rich - no problem. You can hire a nanny, a cook, a maid, and send your kids to private schools. If you are not so rich you have to deal with short maternity leaves, expensive daycare, low quality public education and increasing prohibitive college fees.
Every other industrialized nation in the world, even China, values the nurturing and education of children more than we do and their state policies reflect that.
We are ruled by the draconian rules of corporations where money comes first and people second if at all.
I see that many people, of both genders, have drunk the kool-aid. Perhaps this is what a culture based on money and greed breeds.
15
All these comments by the sexist "working mothers are freeloaders" crowd are based on feelings, perceptions and biases all fueled by the rampant misogyny of our woman hating culture. I urge all these righteously indignant commenters to speak to your HR departments if you want the data based reality of work product and time off. Despite your perceptions and opinions that working moms are loafers who come and go at will - the data based reality is much different. Shocking, I know, for all those convinced that their opinions are facts. Working mothers are far more productive because they have to be. Employers value working mothers because they work harder for less and are loyal because they need the paycheck. It's a sick system - but true. It only adds insult to injury to have colleagues think they are the ones who work harder. It couldn't be further from the data based truth. Working women are more efficient - they don't waste time watching March Madness, going to happy hours, long lunches, etc etc. They may talk about kids with their peers instead of sports - but that is their prerogative - why does that bother some? So many sexist feelings in these comments. Try looking at the data instead.
134
Having lived and worked in Europe for extended periods on various occasions, including with small children, the gravity of the American problem is clear to me. What this article does not say explicitly is that the reason why this issue persists is that solving it requires a recognition of social bonds that are very weak in the US. We can recognize racism and sexism when it is violates individual rights because the assumption is that everyone should be treated equally, but also expected to perform equally. We fail to recognize this problem because pregnancy is viewed as a personal choice pursued for individual benefit and not a social act ultimately serving the public good. It is for the same reason that socialized medicine is such a divisive issue in the US while it is a logical necessity and even a source of pride for many Europeans. Until we, as a society, start viewing pregnancy and childcare as a social act on behalf of the public good and not only a personal choice, mothers (and fathers, insofar as they actually allow their role as fathers to be a priority that requires balance with their roles at work) will continue to be treated as an unnecessary burden on productivity and a threat to the bottom line.
21
Well expressed. Thank you.
5
In my former position, I was required three different times to cover for women on maternity leave. I was never asked whether I could assume the additional responsibilities in addition to my own. It was just assumed. There was minimal appreciativeness when the mothers returned to work.
My boss at this position would often have a scheduled one-on-one meeting with me, but then spend the first ten or so minutes on the phone with her nanny and her three children, arguing about something like whether one of the children could have candy from a vending machine. There was often yelling on one end or the other of the line. My boss would not reschedule the meeting or allow me to leave to take care of other business matters.
In another incident, I desperately needed a last minute conference room to accommodate a client, but the only scheduled conference room was occupied by a mother using her lactating machine. I had to wait with the clients cooling their heels until the mother was done.
It may be the case that there is an anti-mom bias in some workplaces, but my experience is that corporate America bends over backwards to accommodate the working mother.
12
I have diffculty understanding why anyone is entitled to anything from a third party, other than what is agreed to be provided. Why should employers pay the costs of motherhood? And if employers are forced to pay these costs, why should they not be biased against employing those who give rise to those costs?
9
So who bears the cost of family planning choices? Increasingly, other professional women. Not all women are comfortable with this- look at comments on here. Given the growing male/female education disparity, this will become more a divisive issue within feminist circles. It's refreshing actually -- feels like men have reinforcements.
4
One other reason why mothers may not be speaking up: the discrimination they experience often comes from good but misplaced intentions which places them in an awkward position to speak up from.
I've never seen someone treat a woman badly specifically because she was pregnant. By this I mean no malice or mean-spiritedness was directed at her although this article proves that this sometimes happens. But a desire to protect, to make things easier often is shown and this can result in a loss of work opportunity to show one's worth: e.g. the extra shift given to someone else, telling the mom she can go home during a late night while the others have to stay. etc.
In my experience, people are extremely respectful to pregnant women but sometimes this comes with certain costs and a presumption of temporary weakness.
I think people have to realize that a mom is not going to place her baby in jeopardy and that she can define her own limits. In a physical labor job, I'd grant that an employer has more leeway here to curtail certain tasks. But pregnant women are tough and the condition itself isn't exactly fragile in most cases.
2
As a working mother in my occupation, I am routinely expected to outperform coworker's as some sort of obligation to prove that I am capable of managing it all. My male colleagues are not treated the same way.
For those commenting about workers with children taking advantage, you were raised by someone that I am sure made sacrifices to raise you. Also, take care to consider you perspective, you may find it will change significantly when you have children of your own.
5
the next generation has to come from someplace. employers can spread the work when a mother needs time, or they can put the load on the other employees. the economic costs mostly land on the mothers. the employees being inconvenienced and complaining about should rise and demand accommodations for their own lives and their own interests -- whether they plan to become parents in the future or simply have desires to have meaning in their lives beyond the office.
5
Children are not puppies; they are not a hobby; they are the next generation of our species, upon whom all of us, male and female, parent and childless, will eventually depend for our support and care. Placing the burden of child-rearing almost exclusively on the shoulders of young women is already leading to more and more young women around the world rethinking the desirability of producing that generation. Maybe it's time for men, post-child-rearing and childless people to stop denigrating mothers and pitch in.
12
In a world of 7+ billion humans, childbearing is an ethical decision now more than ever. How exactly does one justify demanding subsidy (formal or informal) from those of us who opt out of childbearing, on the basis that we someday might depend on younger humans for a certain set of services?
12
This is easily justifiable if you think of yourself as part of a society and not just an individual. You benefit later in life when the kids grow up to be productive citizens who pay taxes to help maintain the country's benefit programs and maintain the economy etc. etc. There may be 7+ billion humans but they don't all live in the US. If we use your logic, we will end up like Japan and other countries with an aging population and no young folks to support them and maintain a thriving economy and culture. Good grief.
1
We will NEVER have a shortage of human labor or consumers in the US. Get real and find something more honest to justify perks for bio-reproducers. Claiming they are doing good for the economy is absurd.
All we (and Japan, and any other country) has to do is have nimble, liberal and welcoming immigration policies. There is zero shortage of human beings and regrettably we'll have a few billion more for this poor Earth to support in the next 30 or 40 years.
1
I have noticed that the mothers I work with are much more efficient and get more done each day than other employees, because they have to so as to go on to their “second shift.” Thus, it is highly ironic that working mothers are commonly portrayed as less productive and committed to their jobs than other employees.
19
Exactly. Since when did how many hours you spend at the office indicate how productive you are?
7
When my children were in elementary school and I was working part-time, I was encouraged by a female colleague to apply for a full-time position that had just opened in our office. There were over forty applicants, and the decision came down to two of us: me, and a male applicant from outside of the office. I did not get the job; and when my boss called me into the office to tell me, she said I should be happy for the male applicant because he was the father of small children.
When I was finally given a full-time job with the company, my salary was based on that of a male colleague who was 18 years my junior, with that much less professional experience in the field. I was told that because he was a union rep, my salary had to be the same as his so 'he wouldn't get mad.'
16
I have frequently "picked up the slack" for childless colleagues for a variety of reasons. Just because I am at my desk less does not mean I do less - any tech employee can tell you that that benchmark is antiquated (I'm a lawyer - not a tech worker - but the same rule applies). I am lucky to have a fantastic boss, a father of 4 young kids, who gives me what I need to be a working mom and good employee - a flexible schedule and telework days. In exchange, I do great work for him whenever he asks - even if it is by text after my daughter has gone to sleep. He also has my loyalty - which is the point of the arrangement in the first place.
10
The resentment I hear in some of these posts from those who do not have children and feel they unfairly have to "cover" for those who do is understandable on an individual level, but symptomatic of a much larger issue: as a culture we have no sense of the common good, which would make supporting the raising of healthy children a benefit clearly understood by all.
As a result of this mid-set, we have a completely ragged safety net for parenting – everything from parental leave to affordable day care to secure health care. Most mothers I know hate asking for special considerations from their employers, but when there is no back-up or after-hours childcare available, or when doctors don't make house calls to sick children (as they do in France), they have no choice.
I had my child during the 80's, before the "always on" work culture fostered by the Internet existed, and it was hard enough then, in a supportive work environment – I shudder to think what families go through now. This is not a "mothers' problem," or an "employers' problem," it's a cultural problem. All children are, collectively, our children.
27
Why should men have to do extra work to accommodate mothers or not be hired, when women are hired, who are going to take months off for maternity leave, or leave the jobs? Men are not able to develop their careers, while women come and go. But who is raising the children? Another reason why the cost of living must be lowered. One parent should be able to stay home.
4
Women give birth. Men do not. If a woman who has given birth and taken her leave can come back and truly work her job, then that is great.But if her duties shift to other employees and the employer to " pick up the slack" then that does not work and the employer needs to hire a person who can get the work done.
Its not fair to the other employees and the employer for a woman to inflict the complexity or her life choices on them. . I am sure that will not be a popular point of view---but if you are wondering why this issue still exists, this is the reason.
Its simple.
15
If it's so simple, why doesn't it affect men? Why does the need for colleagues to pick up the slack only apply to a woman who has had children? Yes, women give birth but after the first couple of months postpartum, that's not so relevant. Men are just as capable of raising young children as women are.
It's because society still puts the burden of unpaid care for dependents - the elderly, the sick, small children - on women. Someone has to carry that burden but it affects women far more than it affects men. Until we recognize the value of that unpaid work, nothing will change.
14
I have had to "pick up the slack" for co-workers who have ill parents, who have their own illnesses or personal issues. When my kids were little, yes, I left work promptly at 5 and brought work home with me. No one was "picking up the slack."
7
What if a man had to take family leave to care for a loved one? Should he be fired, demoted, or passed over for a promotion just because some people had to pick up the slack while he was playing the very important role of caregiver?
1
There are at least two important points that the deniers of discrimination against mothers seem to miss.
First, women are disproportionately punished for being parents when compared to men. That is discrimination.
Second, the US should realize (as other developed countries do) that children are future workers, consumers, and citizens. The nation has benefitted from the labor of parents who raise children. It is simply inaccurate to see children as little more than beings who provide the "joys of family" for the parents in the domestic sphere. They are future contributors to the public/political sphere as well.
21
We can import all the future contributors we ever will need. Stop deluding yourself that you are doing a public good. You are gratifying a personal whim, nothing more. And those of us who feel strongly about overpopulation are extremely fed up with subsidizing the selfishness.
8
People are not imported. They immigrate. We should not speak of people the way we speak of things.
I support immigration and adoption. Glad to see you do too.
Or those darling babies could be future felons, grow up to be Donald Trump, or do nothing for society. Just because women can have children does not mean society should genuflect to them.
3
My daughter, who telecommutes for one of the largest soft drink manufacturers in the world (not Coke) never announced her pregnancy to her employer and successfully concealed it during her one and only in-office meeting during the pregnancy. Why the fear? Another mom-to-be at the office had doubts cast upon her that she’d be able to continue with her workload, and the subject was discussed fairly openly by the mid-level managers. My daughter feared her work-at-home arrangement would be punitively scrutinized and ultimately dismantled. It was not until she returned home after a fairly easy childbirth – thank goodness – that the wiser women in her life encouraged her to inform her boss that she given birth and then take the maternity time owed to her. No woman should fear that childbirth and motherhood is a career liability. Sometimes I can’t believe this is Corporate America in 2018.
22
Wow, your daughter sprang a maternity leave (of up to 12 weeks) on her employer with zero notice. I'm sure her manager and coworkers were thrilled to have that little nugget dropped in their lap.
4
Oh, how I believe this to be true! I once interviewed for an assistant professor position at a leading university. The chair of the search committee was walking me around the campus, pointing out the library, the health center, and other support facilities, then asking if I had any unanswered questions. I was three months pregnant at the time (not yet showing), so replied by asking if the university had on-campus daycare. He exclaimed with great alarm: "You don't want to even think about that before you are tenured!" Needless to say, I turned the job offer down. Years later, including a six-year stint as a single mom, I am an endowed full professor at another (much more highly-ranked) university. The ride hasn't always been easy, but I wouldn't have missed motherhood ... or my career ... for anything. As I tell my young women trainees, you simply toggle from one great love to another, and back again. So sad that so many still don't get that.
15
I love that image that moms/parents simply “toggle” back & forth from one love to another. I have definitely found that to be true in my experience as a working mom!
5
I grew up in the full hey day of Women's Lib, power suits and doing it all. I had my sons 35 and 30 years ago, took maternity leave as allowed by my companies and was fully committed to my work/career before and after each birth.
The difference now is that everything seems so leaner and meaner (including less support at work for all workers). There is little sense of "we are all in this together". It is depressing that everything in life is now "them against us".
AND - the most interesting thing is that when I was having my children (while working full time) our bosses had working wives so they understood what needed to be done.
Now - many of the male bosses and colleagues I see have stay at home wives/mothers as if it was the 1950s. We are going backwards in so many ways.
25
There are several billion more people on the planet than there were when you had your sons.
Children are less of a novelty than ever, and when something becomes a commodity, it is less prized. Competition for jobs and resources is more fierce than it used to be and that will only get worse. Do you think we can breed our way out of this mess? Absurd.
4
This issue will not be resolved until men shoulder a more equitable share of childcare responsibilities and by necessity (and using their privileged status) seek or decree changes to the workplace that accommodate and ultimately normalize that scenario in a public way.
Until then, work-parenting issues will remain relegated to "mom problem" status and unfortunately continue to pit women against each other.
12
The bias is even more pervasive than the author suggests, extending well beyond the workplace and into society at large. I am the breadwinner in my family, and yet I am also expected to take care of everything child-related, from school projects to doctor's appointments. This is despite the fact that my partner is more than willing to help in these areas. I am always the one that my childrens' teachers contact when there are any issues. I recently took my daughter to the pediatrician, and when I mentioned that I worked upwards of 70 hours a week she said, "You can't work 70 hours a week and still have a family." After I I explained that I make substantially more money than my spouse, who only works 40 hours, she backed off on this, but looked surprised. Social expectations that women are always responsible for their children run deep, and it will take a seismic shift to change this.
31
We live in a world where childcare tends to fall on the woman, regardless of stated intention, where high level professional success demands hours that are unreasonable even for a single person with a life. The judgement that a woman with small children may be less able to perform is illegal, and may be wrong, but it isn't illogical.
While I cannot complain about my professional success, my career nosedived with each new child...as did my performance. Sleeplessness affects mental capacity.
Preventing (some) discrimination is a stop gap. We need a society with rational work hours and a better balance of who does the child care, for everyone's sake.
16
We won't even consider hiring women of childbearing age any longer, having been burned several times in the past.
There are so many qualified applicants for our few openings that we can pick and choose from many diverse backgrounds and demographics. Why choose the one that is most likely to be distracted, uncommitted and absent?
13
Women who are over 50 are no longer of child bearing age. I find that even when extremely qualified with years of experience older workers, especially women, are not considered employable. I trust you have a different opinion.
1
And men of childrearing age? They're likely to be distracted and absent as well. Unless you think that only mothers are the only ones involved in childcare...
1
As manager of ten regional training specialists who traveled throughout California, seven of them women, I had a positive experience with an office pregnancy. Among the ten trainers, the best performer and a peer-leader was a mother of two who had a thrid pregnancy while workng for me. A number of adjustments had to be made while she was on pregnancy leave. Objectives for her region were not fully met but we soldiered on expecting her to return to work. She resumed her duties fully when she came back within 90 days. She made adjustments of her own as mother of a healthy new-born and returned to work nearly full time. I was in awe she could "do it all" but she also had a good situation. She had a solid family and her husband had a good job; health coverage was not an issue and there were no medical issues. This positive case had a good outome; regional training operations were not seriously affected and our corporate structure easily absorbed the strain. But this picture would have changed dramatically had these positive variables been negative, such as health / mental health problems, no health coverage, poor or worsening family situation, child care issues, housing problems, etc. The US cuts no slack for pregnant women without resources to stay in the workplace (or for employers to help them) in contrast to a public network of income and social supports for early childhood, as in Nordic countries, Clearly we need to do better.
11
FDW I'm glad that everything worked out for you. I do have a question, would your response have been the same if a male training specialist had come to you and said, you know in nine months I will need to take off 90 days and in the nine months leading up to that my preformance is going to go down. I hope you will support me because I have decided I need a life changing experence, so I'm taking up windsurfing and want to spend 3 months windsurfing on the beach in Thailand.
If your answer is no, then please me tell why.
3
If I have obligations that cause me frequently miss work, that makes me less valuable to an employer. I don't see how you get around that.
17
I am a mother of two young children who started a new job with greater pressures and more money when my second son was 10 mos. I have used my allowed sick leave to take my kids to appointments, or to stay home and care for them when they are sick. My work load has not diminished. What has increased is my time management and efficiency, and my commitment to my career and employer...I need to do this job well for more reasons than before, and, I am able to do this job well because my kids are a constant reminder to do the very best every day, no matter what else gets in the way.
I like to think that being a mom has made me a more valuable employee.
7
Kids have two parents. Why is it assumed women will be unreliable and take on the bulk of missed work days? This is sexism, pure and simple.
4
And would you discriminate against someone who became ill? You needn't answer.
I'm all for parents getting leave and additional support from colleagues but as a non-parent, I should be afforded the same courtesy and rights. Non-traditional families, people with close friends who function as family, and, especially, adult children caring for declining aged parents should all be given the same benefits and support, period.
With the planet burgeoning with overpopulation and the long overdue re-evaluation of gender norms and family definitions, it's long past time for society to acknowledge that every employee is a member of a domestic unit who will occasionally require time away from work to manage that unit.
34
This piece resonates with me. I worked in a consulting firm and when I went back after maternity leave, I was told that I should consider taking a position below my current level in order to accommodate my new parenting role. On top of that, the company's bad financial performance was pinned down to me not contributing enough in my role during my pregnancy the previous year although I was not in charge of business development or growing the business. Overall, I was angry at the way I was treated that I decided to quit and look for another job. The company refused to pay me my bonus after my resignation citing some internal policy. The whole experience has scarred me for life. I often wonder what the point was staying late and working during weekends, trying to meet every client demand and being a loyal employee. Bias against pregnant women and moms is a hard thing to talk about or report to someone because most of things that managers and coworkers do or say are implied and never said to your face.
I'm glad this is being spoken about publicly. I hope things will change for the better by the time my daughter grows up and has to face the same issues.
11
Some people, men and women, choose to work 60 hours or more a week because they love their work and/or driven to advance their career.
Some people, mostly women, but also some men, choose to have less of themselves devoted to their work and spend more time with family or other interests.
Many people choose to devote only enough time to work to cover their financial needs and responsibilities.
Shouldn't an employer prefer to hire a person who devotes their life to their job and thus outperforms someone who spends significant time on other interests? Of course only if the devoted employee truly performs better because of their devotion. For some jobs, if only a minority, the extent of commitment and involvement is critical.
8
Your out-perform comment isn't based in reality. In fact, many employees who do not have a proper work/life balance end up making horrible decisions because their views become some distorted by their narrow-minded (never mind self-righteous) attitudes.
3
I was so stressed out trying to work full time and care for my newborn, even with my husband helping out, I gave up and quit work for 13 years. I had another child and once both were 15 and 10 years old, I returned to part time work, eventually returning to full time work, although much behind my peers. But, I am so glad I was able to step away as long as I did and spend that time raising my own children rather than hiring untrained, uncaring strangers. I have caught up financially and am very happy with my "individual contributor" status in my job. If I had worked my way up the ladder, I probably would be very stressed out and not be as close as I am to my now grown sons. Yes, the workplace made it very hard on me but, in hindsight, it was for the best. I was very lucky to have that choice.
6
yes, you were lucky to have that choice. but because someone else makes a different choice, or does not have the same luxury, does not automatically mean she is leaving her children with "untrained, uncaring strangers" or any less of a caring mom Please. Here we go again with the mommy bashing, from a mom.
9
These stories are tiresome and entitled.
I don't have children. I chose not to have children so I could pursue a variety of other interests. My work does not allow me to leave early to get to my oboe lessons. Why should anyone get to leave work early just to pick up their children?
When the holidays roll around my employer needs coverage, the people with children (men and women alike) are exempted because they "need" to be with their "families." I have a wife. We have ferrets. We are as much a family as anyone.
If you want to find out what real discrimination is in this world, try being someone who has chosen not to have children.
37
They need to leave because the childcare center closes and the childcare workers need to go home.
Maybe you are working too many hours.
Maybe employers could run companies that are fully staffed such that workers only had to work a 40-50 hour work week, not 60+, which seems inhumane for everyone.
Further, they could employ more people and more people would have a wage.
Win win, except for profits (too bad, so sad, those poor CEOs and shareholders).
14
All your mentioning is "face time". There is a differnce between getting your work done and spending time at work.
4
I worked for a company owned by woman who had children and it was not friendly at all to working mom’s. I had my boss ask how I was going to care for my children when I told him I was pregnant with my second child. He later told me a younger guy would be more of a go getter than a working mother. All sorts of things happened that would’ve never happened to working fathers. When I departed this job I was able to tell both the owner and my boss exactly how I felt about the company culture for working mom’s. Unfortunately, I don’t think it mattered with the owner, she finished our meeting telling me that the position I held (which I doubled my sales in the time I was there) wasn’t fit for mom’s. Any business can make it a desirable place to work for mom’s, in return you will have some of the most talented, loyal, and hardworking individuals employeed for you.
6
My experience at the job I held for two decades was actually a bias towards women who were pregnant and/or had children. Those of us in the office that were single and/or with no kids were routinely asked to cover the work of mom's on maternity leave with no extra compensation. I had to cover a good 50% of the workloads of three different women on maternity leave in one year, with no extra compensation, and I might add, no thank you from the ladies in question. Problems with day-care, or what have you? Same issue. The moms would take off for the day, and those with no kids would routinely be left "holding the bag."
34
My married daughter is a professional who works for a state agency and she has had two maternity leaves in the last three years, totaling 10 months of total leave. After her last leave was up two weeks ago she decided to resign because her commute is 75 minutes each way and she was uncomfortable being so far from home with a 3 month old and an 18 month old in daycare. Rather than accept her notice her superiors in her department offered her an opportunity to work one day each week so she could keep her health benefits and her pension. This arrangement is until next February and she then can either return full time to her present position or find another position in the same pension system that is closer to home. I was really surprised at how accommodating my daughter’s bosses were, and it would be terrific if all workplaces could do this, but I realize it wouldn’t work for many smaller employers.
9
She works for a government, not a small business or profit making organization. More than likely, the hours she does work are highly valued, and the hours she does not work are not held against her department.
When I was a government manager, I enjoyed having my professional staff come back and work part time after maternity. It was, of course, entirely their choice, but if we could get clearance to allow them to work part time, we did. Invariably, they worked all of their planned hours and did a lot of work. To me, it was just a scheduling thing, and I could count on them to be at work and do a good job.
None of them ever wanted to get promoted to management, however.
1
I don't think it's "anti-mom bias." I have seen ostensibly ambitious career women consistently put weddings and pregnancies before their work. This may be okay, but it's not okay to other workers. Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness. Neither is motherhood. if you want the joys of a family, be prepared to be responsible and not expect others to do your work or the taxpayer to pay you to have children.
22
And I've seen many career men consistently dedicating company time to the success of their fantasy sports teams over the success of their work.
10
I fail to see that most mothers expect others to do their work or for taxpayers to pay them out. There are always slackers and folks willing to take a handout (of any gender), but that's a broad generalization about mothers. If another worker is somehow harmed by someone else's maternity leave or desire to marry, then that sounds like something the company needs to better manage. It's perfectly reasonable for an employee to use their PTO or leave within policy. Do you feel the same way about someone who takes leave for any other reason?
1
Half the staff of my CPA are female. I am family friendly and I do what I possibly can for moms with children. I let them work from home if the weather is bad and their kids are home since the schools are closed. I let them take time out when their kids are sick or have special meetings with the child's teachers. What I get in return is loyalty and I know these women will do what they can to make the firm financially successful. It is a win win situation for everyone. Why aren't all firms like ours.
29
Our population is going down and with it, economic growth. We’ve decided as a nation that children are unimportant. We don’t want to pay for maternity care or education but we DO expect someone to take care of us when we’re old, buy our goods, and keep the economy moving. Can’t have it both ways.
25
Sarah,
a) the population of the United States is not declining. What on earth makes you think that?
b) There are nearly 7.5 billion humans on the planet now, most of them quite young. Unfortunately, the world health organization projects nearly 12 billion by 2100 -- that is half again as many humans your descendants will be competing with for breathable air, drinkable water, toilets, food, energy and jobs.
We have ZERO shortage of human labor and can import all we need for "economic growth." Using that as an excuse to incentivize human breeding is reprehensible, selfish and short-sighted.
3
Small wonder Kosher Dill does not use their name or location. This same person bragged in another post about their company not hiring women of child-bearing age because they got “burned” somehow and then here mocks someone for bringing up (albeit incompletely) the latest report from the CDC about the declining birth rate in our country. Reasonable people can agree to disagree about what this means. But taken with the other prejudicial statement, it seems prudent to ignore Kosher all together.
4
Every employer knows that when you hire someone, anyone, you are buying into some of their problems, some of which you know about (or suspect) and some of which you do not know about (or suspect). That comes with the territory. Let's face it, workers are a necessary pain in the neck, which is why some employers love automation and want more of it. Every employer prefers to hire the workers who will bring fewer problems with them than others. Many employers just want fewer workers.
When a pregnant woman or a woman with kids applies for a job, an employer knows that if they hire her they are buying into some of her kid problems. (And there WILL be problems. I'm a dad and a grandfather.) If they hire someone who does not have kids, they are still buying into problems, but not kid problems. But since society needs births, we consider mothers' kid problems to be society's problems and we expect employers to carry some of the weight.
Should we be angry with and morally outraged by employers who want to avoid avoidable problems? Should we drive them to adopt surreptitious tactics of avoidance and then spend money trying to catch them and punish them? Should we subsidize mothers by giving tax breaks to those employers who willingly buy into mothers' kid problems? Should we subsidize mothers so they don't have to work?
Do we really need more people, or as many more as we're getting?
6
I think the point is, do employers view Father’s as having potential ‘kid problems’? No. Hence, gender discrimination. Full stop.
6
You're right. Biology discriminates. Society discriminates. The law discriminates. Fathers and mothers discriminate. Employers discriminate. So why put all the weight on employers? Why demonize them? You can do it, but do they have a legitimate concern? And if they do, do we really solve the problem by putting all the weight on them?
Just saying.
1
Kids are not a “mom problem” they’re a “parent problem,” a “dad problem.” Or maybe they’re not a problem at all. It certainly depends on your perspective. The point of this article, though, is to point out that when employers view pregnancy & children as a “mom problem,” that translates into discrimination against women, which should make headlines in the #MeToo era.
1
Wow, props to the all NYT Picks for actually getting into the meat and potatoes of this debate.
I'm a dad, and I happily pick up slack when a coworker is pregnant, or has a soccer game, or needs to pick up kids early. My coworkers give me the same courtesy.
But there are two common problems with this courtesy.
1) It gets abused. I am currently covering for a new parent who is taking four months unpaid leave over and above their paid vacation time and pregnancy leave. I'm handling it, but I would have no problem if someone else told the parent their extended absence was unacceptable. Parents are happy to cover for other parents, but sometimes you or your boss has to put your foot down and tell other parents to pull their weight. Which rolls into...
2) Not everyone is a parent. How fair is it to ask the single guy in the next cube to cover for me when I can't reciprocate the favor? And then I can't buy him a beer because of soccer the next weekend? Single people don't exist to serve parents!
Being a parent means yes, you do have a full time job outside the job that puts food on the table. I mean, you have to put that food in your kids' mouths, literally, for quite some time!
As a parent, you have to learn to compartmentalize and balance those two jobs as best possible. If you don't, you run the risk of your boss deciding that your unbalanced focus on your family job has become unfairly burdensome to your coworkers.
That's not discrimination. That's business.
43
Isn’t parental leave policy afforded here? Presumably the pregnancy was obvious, and that parent applied for and was granted her parental leave, plus perhaps some extended unpaid time. The employer should have made accommodations when he/she found out the parent would be away for several months, and not expect co -workers to cover for her without proper compensation.
5
I find most childless people have *other* things that they take time off for--trips out of town, vacations, friends' weddings (especially for the young.) And, anecdotally, those who are young are often less efficient at work--their social lives take up more of their time, they are still getting used to working as a way of life, etc.
None of that is bad--it's part of the balance. I think moms' responsibilities outside of work are seen in a negative light because they are not about the mom, but about this other 'creature' that those in the office see as unrelated to the business. Truthfully, since every business depends on customers, we should be supporting those who literally create those customers. Countries with falling birth rates have failing economies.
5
Exactly, Troy.
I worked for a company where time off was decided by seniority. For years I missed the big Christmas Eve afternoon gathering at my grandma's, including the last one. Finally it came to be my time to pick and choose the plum days off. Enter a vocal, entitled "dad" who agitated that it wasn't fair little Oliver or whoever wouldn't have both parents around on Christmas Eve, 4th of July, whatever -- and our manager caved. (this was a F500 company btw, not some mom and pop shop.)
We were in an industry that was staffed 24/7, and everyone choosing it as a career knew those limitations from day one. Yet the parents always wrangled exceptions.
Another time, my mom was having her initial cancer surgery, about a year before she died. I went in to tell my manager I'd be out from the 9th of the month till she could be alone by day. (I was a 15-year employee with a stellar performance rating).
He reared back and said "Do you have vacation time to cover that?!" I said "I really don't care what sort of leave you call it, I won't be here."
During the period I was out, his new, young wife had a "miscarriage" at the 5th week of pregnancy. He took an entire week off to "hold her hand." The HR person told me he never submitted a time card accounting for that as either vacation or caregiver leave -- he just took the time off, paid. Called the office once a day. He was senior enough that no one questioned him, and because it was breeding-related, he was OK.
6
I have found that I am much more EFFICIENT at work (and home) since having children. I push as hard as I can throughout the day so I can leave at a reasonable hour to pick kids up from school/daycare. The quality of my work has not diminished, either. (I do have more headaches and neck pain, though!) I am also lucky to have a supportive boss who is a mom of four herself.
7
The conversation is certainly necessary, but it should also necessarily address these two realities in conjunction with one another:
-Pregnancy is still a female-only condition, and understandably affects women disproportionately. Parenthood, on the other hand, is not female-only, and should not affect women disproportionately.
-Parenthood often IS a burden on employers. As a teacher, I've seen this frequently - a teacher leaves halfway through the year for maternity, as is her well-earned right. But the fact remains: the kids are worse off for the rest of the year, period.
These two realities suggest to me that any legitimate solution has to come from the public arena, and with public dollars.
18
I once hired a person more or less because she was a mother. She and I had worked at the same large accounting firm where we had contact from time to time. I knew her reputation as a skilled and reliable worker.
I had recently moved to a new job with 30 people working for four supervisors who reported to me. Three of those departments had a variety of issues that were going to require a lot of my attention. Their workloads were far from predictable but considerably front loaded monthly. The fourth supervisory position was in an area that required technical expertise, diligence and people skills but the workload allowed for a predictable daily schedule. I needed someone in that position that I had good reason to believe I could rely on without much guidance from me. As I asked around I became aware that this person who had recently had her second child was looking for work that would use her skills but have predictable hours unlike at an accounting firm in 1983. I hired her and it worked out as we both had hoped. I believe I got someone with superior skills because I could offer a job condition she needed in an industry where that condition was rare in NYC. [We paid competatively.]
7
There is a widespread misunderstanding of how you can maximize your lifetime earnings, if that's your goal. The answer is to never take time off from working and never be distracted by family matters when working. The people who write these "discrimination" pieces cannot be people who've worked in business (I can't speak for government) for long periods of time. Once your salary or career trajectory fall behind your equally qualified piers FOR ANY REASON, you're permanently behind. That's all that there is to it. No one presenting a resume with gaps in it or who "can't work weekends" is going to get paid top dollar. The idea that equal "qualifications" can be measured without this elephant in the room if a big mistake.
13
Article misses a big generation gap. As a Gen X mom who worked from her hospital bed after a c-section, I find the dropped off the face of the earth approach of younger male employees taking paternity leave totally off-putting. Could you please answer email sometimes? I have a young child myself, it's our busy season, and I'm DYING. Company would not hire part time help to cover. This is more ranting than comment, but look for a lot of inter-generational conflict on this one.
52
The firm was too cheap to hire additional help. Time to thing about moving on with another job.
6
So what you're saying is that everyone should have to suffer like you did? I didn't get mine, so no one else should? That's a great way to solve this issue /s
6
(1) This is the firm's problem for not hiring temporary help, and they should be held accountable to the employees that they dump on for that behavior. (2) The "I had to walk up hill both ways to school so you do, too" attitude supports the status quo, which was unfair to you when you had your child and unfair to everyone coming after you. Let's work together to build a better world, not compete for who had it hardest.
14
The misogyny is not even subtle. The anti-abortion right would force women to have children even if they don't want to and then employers and co-workers will gleefully hate them when they have to miss work to handle parental responsibilities and tell them to stay home. Seems as a society we still want women at home with the children they are forced to bear. And we thought is was the 21st century.
24
Anti mom bias is real. My wife is an attorney and has a law firm with three associates. Two of the associates got pregnant. She was irritated by this development and all the ramifications. I was very surprised.
7
As a husband and father, I certainly want mothers-to-be and mothers to have the same opportunities that men do. I'd also like to note that there are many other 'open secrets' at the workplace- coworkers are often required to pick up the slack when a mom stays home with their sick child or goes to a school event (or insert a thousand other reasons why moms miss work, some valid). Or to step in for 'pump breaks' multiple times a day to do the job of an infant's mother. I find it extraordinarily irritating that the children of many moms that I work with seem to fall ill mostly on sunny Fridays. It is also an open secret that many moms make up excuses to miss work when their kids aren't sick at all.
15
And I, a mom, have had to pick up the slack for people who come in late or hungover because they went out the night before.
2
And why should not fathers stay at home with sick children or go to school events? Dan assumes that all child-related tasks are women's burden. That kind of attitude normalizes discrimination. And why do employers not plan for the obvious reality of employees who miss days? After all, men get sick or decide to go golfing. So if both women and men miss work, as I know from years of experience that they do, why don't employers figure out a way to cover?
2
Maybe we should have better maternity leave, so frequent pump breaks wouldn't be as necessary.
Also, why is it that only your female co-workers stay home with their sick children? Maybe you and other fathers should step and offer to do it more frequently.
4
Everyone Relax. The Robots are coming to take your job so there is no reason to complain about the mother in the office. It's almost over.
34
It's the dads who need to step up. Moms get discriminated against because they ARE, in fact, the ones who too often get stuck making their kids a consistently higher priority than their jobs. Who stays home when the kid is sick? The mom. Who takes the kids to their doctor appointments? The mom. Who does the school call when they have to send a kid home? The mom. Who is reluctant to travel for work? The mom. (And I know this isn't always the case...but it is too often!)
20
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. What you describe certainly resembles the division of labor between me and my wife when it comes to childcare, and I don't think it is fair at all. It's not fair to her, because it limits here career prospects. It's not fair to me because all of those late nights and all of the work travel deprive me of time with my kids that I sorely miss. That said, I'm not sure what to do about it.
The groundwork for our current division of labor was laid before we even met. When we got together I was a newly minted management consultant making close to six figures straight out of school, and she was an AmeriCorps volunteer barely making five. I chose my career in part because I'd internalized the cultural messages telling me that such a high flying career was a necessity in landing a girl of her caliber. She chose her career in part because she'd internalized cultural messages telling her she should put others before herself.
Fast forward to today, and I vastly out earn her largely because of the choices we made as teenagers and the career paths they sent us down. I try to be a very involved dad, but when my job demands I hope on a plane across the country on less than 24 hours notice, well that is our mortgage and our kids college funds at stake. If her job were to do the same the potential costs of refusing are much lower. So, we make the logical choice based on the economics of it. I head to the airport while she takes the kids.
6
Even though I enjoy the thoughtful comments in NYT, I’m used to people denying that women are expected to be hyper-pro social. Women are subtly shamed when they advocate for themselves and it does shape our lives. It’s just nice to hear this from a mans perspective. Sick of the cultural gaslight.
1
Everything the articles shows says and demonstrates something fundamentally wrong with America vis a vis other nations , especially all other advanced developed Countries.
Perhaps the greatest single example of just how much America shows its bias and discrimination to Mothers must be in regards to the subject of paid Maternity leave where the U.S is one of only 3 Countries in the World that does not mandate guaranteed time off and financial support for new mothers paid either by Employers or the Government.
America, the richest country on Earth stands with Somalia (a failed State ) and Papua New Guinea (a Tribal island Nation) in not providing its Mothers the time and support to give birth and spent some time with their newborn at the time it is most dependant on its Mother it will ever be.
But the American internal Bias and prejudice goes further than just denial of a support that THE ENTIRE WORLD universally provides but seen in the opinions and views of many Americans who do not see why a New Mother should get something they don't or won't get, especially if they choose not to have children themselves (a justification many give).
Many others resent that Mothers are given time off (where they are) because they are forced to work more or harder because the Employer does not replace the absent Mother but chooses to make her output carried by those staff at work. Interestingly, none blame the Employer for this and see the Mother as the cause.
America, grow up.
27
After 40 years in the work place I’ve seen the following.
Time off for mom to chauffeur/attend dr appointments, dentist, pick up - delivery of children due to custody days, dance recitals, music recitals, tae kwondo, karate, base ball, hockey, football, track & field, tennis, cheerleading and on and on.
Child free co-workers, try to get a day off to take your dog to vet. I didn’t have their children and had no interest in carrying a co-workers load so my co-worker could “parent”. You can’t have it all unless it’s at someone else’s expense.
39
At my last job, I reported to the CFO, who was a child free woman and "pet parent"... thankfully! Never had an issue with time off for vet visits. However, she was the only manager / boss I ever had that was accommodating to pet issues.
5
I understand and agree with the need to support parents in the workplace, both mothers and fathers. We should be able to do a better job of this in our country.
And I am grateful that more mothers can continue to pursue their careers. Some of the best physicians, teachers, politicians, and nurses I have ever met are mothers.
But I do have another question. Is there a need to support parents who choose to stay at home full time with their children? Is there any societal value in having stay at home parents? Or should we be encouraging all parents to work outside the home? I'm genuinely curious to know what people think.
5
I've thought about this, as a married working mother of two who wants to stay home but the finances won't allow it. It appears that most stay at home moms fall into two camps: (1) those in poverty and, (2) the upper middle class to wealthy. Middle class families are shut out of the stay at home parent dynamic. If I had a choice, I would stay home and raise my kids, and perhaps work part time 15 to 20 hours a week.
There is societal value - and in fact society is still set up - to have one stay at home parent.
4
You could have saved up for your maternity leave or extended SAHM-hood. That's what my mom and dad did more than 50 year ago on the wages of a secretary and factory worker -- they lived frugally for several years and banked as much as they could, so that our mother could stay home till we were in school.
Planning and prudence, rather than expecting fellow citizens to sacrifice their own values and dreams in order to subsidize yours!
Would you give up the notion of having kids and instead give ME the money to finance wildlife conservation efforts, efforts to save coral reefs and other matters important to ME? No? But you expect the rest of us to hand over part of our wages to fulfill YOUR wants? Why?
4
it's not just mothers. At work I can not considered for any sort of traveling gig because they assume that because I live with my partner of 10 years, I am less free to leave. This is actually something they say, more or less. "Would Alan be okay with that?" they asked me once when I said I would like to go to Miami to get our product installed there....
3
Why are women considered chattel from the day we are born until the day we die? We are always cast as Lilith, men need to possess and punish us. In spite of this phenomenon, women continue to vote Republican against their best interests. We can change this dynamic if we vote accordingly, we are over 50% of the population.
12
Unfortunately, often times women are our own worst enemy.
2
Do we want to have a society in which the only women to give birth are the ones who can't succeed in a career? Child care should be free and of high quality. Women should be able to nurse their babies everywhere, including where they work.
139
Meanwhile another report out today stated that the US birthdate was down some 2% and there were great fears about the economy shrinking for lack of a sufficient workforce.
But you all go on and blame those silly mothers for trying to “have it all” and not the system that pitted you against them.
21
I've been fortunate to work as a freelancer, with control over my schedule, and earning power. I have also had some great clients over the years that appreciated the good work we did together, and weren't put off by emails delivered to their inbox at 2am (with my first son I typically napped with him during the day and worked at night), or that my meeting attire was 'maternity'. One client of 10 years and I had our babies one year apart. In the early years, she worked part time from home and we would have meetings while the babies played together or on our laps. We turned out a lot of great work, under budget and on deadline. Another client, a man, and I had our first meeting when I was 6 months pregnant. I got the assignment, and we continued to work together for years. I have so many stories of how I juggled work/mom life when my boys were little. I couldn't have done it without some great babysitters and my husband. I give my clients credit for being 'great', but they were never at a disadvantage in hiring me because I was also a mom. If there is anything motherhood makes you masterful at, it's organizing your time and managing multiple priorities at once. The best employers support a work/life balance, and because of that they attract and keep the best workers.
11
I saw many good comments. Some of the interrelated points: there are ways we’re all in this together; we all need time to take care of necessary personal obligations; some of us take on obligations that benefit society; and the existence of well cared for children benefits society as a whole.
In the abortion debates I have no interest in interfering with decisions involving contraception, severe birth defects, or the life or health of a pregnant woman. I do bridle at arguments that seem to seek a greater level of personal autonomy, free from obligations imposed by society, for ordinary women than ordinary men enjoy. But if society involves itself at some point in a pregnancy by imposing the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term then it seems clear to me that society has an obligation to help; just as society should ensure that dangerous work isn’t unnecessarily dangerous or that draftees are not cannon fodder in the service of someone’s vainglory.
Society no longer helps ensure children are well cared for by artificially restricting the economic prospects of women as a way to strongly encourage marriage.
But enlarging the problem and aiming towards having more people working fewer hours, as I think they do in Germany, makes sense to me. Figuring out how to encourage marriage without artificially making women dependent also seems worthwhile. Laws and rules, alone, won’t accomplish these sorts of objectives.
5
When I was 16 weeks pregnant, I was told at an interview "I don't want to train someone else for two months while you take maternity leave." The irony is that this interviewer had come back from her own maternity three months prior.
At my next interview for a full time job a few weeks later, I was refused the full-time position and offered a part-time position at $10 per hour. I have a doctorate. And a master's degree. I have published in some of the top journals in my field. To say I was shocked speachless is an understatement.
I haven't reported either incident. What my prospective employers didn't realize is that pregnancy is a powerful motivator. I finished huge amounts of work at a pace that outstripped my peers in the time leading up to the birth of both of my children. So, my only #MomsToo action was to show both of those interviewers that they had made a mistake.
12
My daughter is a single mom who had to move away from a decent job. The hiring process is an eye opener, most employers shy away from a single mom.
In my business I have always favored the single mom for one simple reason, they are always more reliable.
14
"In my business I have always favored the single mom... they are always more reliable."
Unvarnished bias. Fascinating.
2
I work in the medical field, purposely being vague. The department & facility I work for provides great leeway to pregnant women, moms & paternity leave for dads. I do believe this is important but here’s the facts that no one wants to discuss, this argument is always one-sided in favor of family.
Once a women becomes pregnant she shouldn’t be working in rooms that utilize radiation. So who ends up exposing themselves to all this additional radiation over a career as colleagues step into these rooms to cover for the pregnant colleague?
I recently was stuck by a dirty needle, it happens. This inevitably will happen to most medical workers, it’s basic math, number of cases you work increases your risk. Though if you have three kids and the number of cases you perform over a career is drastically reduced, so is your risk. This also pertains to a host of other issues: stress, potential for law suits, etc.
We also have a very generous scheduling program. Which again is great but who picks up the slack when women now want to be off early or come in late? Who covers on nights, weekends, holidays, school breaks & summer vacations? Who covers when kids are sick and parents can’t come in? Who covers when a women wants to step out to pump several times a day?
I agree we should provide a great work place for pregnant women, moms & dads. I just wish someone would acknowledge that it is absolutely a burden on other co-workers and to pretend it’s not is well, just pretend.
32
Perhaps there should be "parental insurance," where would-be parent would pay a recurring premium, in the likelihood they purposefully (or accidentally) become parent? Sort of like auto insurance. If a parent has an "accident" or a willful "wreck" (a baby), then s/he can file a claim for reimbursement for the 12 weeks (or whatever amount of time) leave they've been permitted, to take off to take care of the child. And the salary the parent would've been paid, had there been no baby to care for, could be used to cover the cost for a temporary worker, until the parent returns to work.
3
Two changes that would go the furthest to correcting these wrongs are simple but difficult to enact:
- remove social and cultural stigma of stay at home dads.
- Mandatory maternity AND paternity leave (equal amounts of time).
Until dads can step in to take care of a household and do so at similar rates to women, and men present the same business disadvantage of lost work time from childbearing, there will never be equality for moms in the workplace.
13
There is a definite anti-working mom bias problem in this country. It’s a no win situation for moms no matter how you handle it. I decided to take time out and raise my small children but when I retuned to the work force after a few years I found out 6 months after starting my new job that my boss had bad mouthed me for taking time off. The first thing she told me was that she was very concerned that I had gotten hired despite having been a stay at home mom for a few years. Nice to meet you too!
It was a long, hard few months to gain her and my co-workers’ respect.
And I’m one of the lucky ones. I have a tremendous support system behind me that enables me to go into work even when a child is sick, but even then I continue to face a backlash. Some of my co-workers (all of which don’t even have kids) resented that fact and snide comments are made to me and behind my back about all the help I have. I also want to point out that it’s not me going home because I have a headache or calling in sick after long weekends like my childless counterparts do.
7
Sorry, but I have found that the opposite is true. Women (and men, to some extend) who do not have children end up picking up a great deal of slack. I am not saying that all mothers arrive late/leave early because of their children, but I, and I am sure many others, have witnessed this within the workplace. Once, when my office was downgrading and my position got cut I had one colleague tell me that it was "ok" because my "husband works" and I "don't have kids". Another time, I was actually passed over for a job on the basis that the other candidate "had kids and a family to feed". So, respectfully, I cannot support any notion of "Anti-mom" bias. We all have choices and sometimes, as Anne Marie Slaughter so succinctly pointed out, we cannot "have it all"... at least not at the same time, in a country that does nothing to foster family, but rather allows it to become a point of contention among citizens.
33
I see a lot of furious comments from people who feel they've been unfairly treated when co-workers use FMLA, but I'm not sure that going to a Dickensian world where people can't get time to care for their elderly parents or their own health concerns is the world we want to live in.
Intermittent FMLA applies to MANY conditions. Learn your rights and use them, don't get angry when other people use theirs.
Just think, singletons, the same laws that protect co-workers taking time with kids are the same laws that will protect you when you get cancer or your elderly parent needs emergency care. It's called Intermittent FMLA.
28
Not everyone who is child-free is a "singleton."
3
Is "singleton" some sort of new derogatory term for single people? If it's not, you've certainly made it sound that way.
2
People will have children so it's important to make some accommodations.
BUT having children is an elective act (for many) and that makes is a little harder to feel supportive. There are many non-work life-style choices that can be time-consuming and potentially impact working schedules. Should we also accommodate those too for childless employees?
The world is arguably overpopulated, tho it's hard to know how to factor that into this issue.
14
The article is about systematic discrimination in salary and hiring and firing practices, in spite of the fact that evidence demonstrates that mothers are equally productive at work, so your comment seems to suggest that we should get to discriminate against mothers because they made the choice to be mothers.
7
So then male parents should have to make, and suffer for, the same choices? It doesn't appear they do.
6
Jane Mars:
"Equally [productive"? That is wrong. Mothers are generally less valuable to employers than non-mothers who can work long and inconvenient schedules.
As Claudia Goldin notes, "Immediately after graduation [with MBAs], women earn 92 cents for each male dollar. A decade later they earn only 57 cents.
Correcting for time off and hours of work reduces the difference in the earnings between men and women but doesn’t eliminate it.
On the face of it, that looks like proof of disparate treatment. It may seem understandable that when a man works more hours than a woman, he earns more. But why should his compensation per hour be greater, given the same qualifications? But once again, the problem isn’t simple.
The data shows that women disproportionately seek jobs — including full-time jobs — that are more likely to mesh with family responsibilities, which, for the most part, are still greater for women than for men. So, the research shows, women tend to prefer jobs that offer flexibility: the ability to shift hours of work and rearrange shifts to accommodate emergencies at home."
It seems hard for me to believe that women who are pregnant or have young children can - on average - provide as much value as single workers. It's unfair to expect one employer to provide equal compensation when productivity differs. If anything, encouraging children is a societal burden that should be spread across the population.
12
Anti-mom bias in the workplace?
When my mother was dying of cancer, age 68, and I was her only available caregiver (father dead) - I lost a five-figure sum in wages because of taking unpaid leave via FMLA after using up all my vacation time.
During the exact same period, a co-worker at the same level in the organization was out on 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, at full salary.
Her's was a voluntary condition that she freely chose; mine was an involuntary misfortune. But her absence was paid and mine was not.
I will never, ever support additional perks for parents -- aside from the preferential income tax treatment, tax "credit" welfare, preferential treatment under social security for themselves and their offspring, massive preferences in the social safety net and employer perks subsidized by the rest of us, such as "family" premiums for health insurance that aren't much more than the premiums for singles, and preference in assigning vacation and holidays to people with kids.
No one is forced to breed and our planet already is staggering under a far too heavy load of humans. It's a lifestyle choice just like any other -- nothing noble, sacred or protected about it.
We need to protect people who are caregiving the existing ill and elderly, not the people who are adding more humans. Stop rewarding the reproducers and stop letting them kid themselves that they are performing some unselfish social good.
47
This is really where a lot of the resentment lies in the workplace - childless people feel like there is fundamentally an unequal distribution of benefits. Why not just give all employees 12 weeks paid for a "qualifying family situation" which can include a baby, a dying parent, etc. I honestly think that would alleviate a lot of the friction. (Not all friction, but it would be a step).
36
I am sorry for the loss of both your parents, and that you were in the position of having to care for your dying mother - a painful experience. I'm also sorry that your takeaway from the experience is so bitter. You were fortunate to have the option of FMLA, and the savings that allowed you to take the time unpaid.
You seem passionate that Family Medical Leave should be paid time – that would be a blessing to many people, especially those without 5-figure salaries. Fighting for that 'right' isn't an either/or battle against maternity leave. I hope you can find some empathy, and offer a little of it to others unlike yourself. It comes back.
11
12 weeks for involuntary situations would be my suggestion. Opting to become a parent is a voluntary lifestyle choice that can be saved and planned for, and should not have to be subsidized by employer or fellow citizens.
If saving and planning for maternity leave is too onerous, then opt to not be a parent.
1
This is not mainly about bias, as the word normally means- some kind of irrational prejudice- though some of that may exist. It is simply the pursuit of profits in this society where human considerations are secondary, if they exist at all. In the social democratic, or social market economies, such as in the Scandinavian countries, human needs are built in to the structure of society, economic practices, and personal values.
If we move in that direction we can also consider how to help businesses and organizations deal with some of the difficulties childbearing and parenthood creates- yes, they are real. That includes parental leave for both sexes, daycare facilities at work, childcare subsidies, etc. But that requires a reconsideration of where we want to go as a society- are human needs as important as the needs of capital?
24
It's bias alright. It's bias because it's based on status, not performance. If you're denied a raise or promotion because the boss doesn't think you'll out on the time or relocate, that's different from already not putting in the time or declaring an unwillingness to relocate. It's bias if you "already have a full-time job at home", work performance notwithstanding.
It's also bias unless you can show, universally, that nonmothers outperform mothers. There are many varying levels of commitment to the job, many competing concerns. Sick parents, school, girlfriends, buying a house or moving, hobbies. Some single people, I've heard, even find time at work to shop on Amazon. If there's more overlap than difference in commitment levels, then discrimination against mothers is ... discrimination. Irrational discrimination.
I agree with your social assessment. Raising children is a big job, and the government on net only adds to the burden. How many children go to school contagious because it would mean a day off work? How many preschoolers suffer substandard care, however well intentioned, because daycare is as expensive as college? If we want our people to exploit their talents and contribute their best to society, we have work to do.
2
Yes, this! If our society was more supportive of human needs in general, there would be less of a burden on parents and others who are trying to help nurture and educate the next generations. And life would be more pleasant for breeders and non-breeders alike.
5
I guess we have a different definition of bias. You are saying that until something adverse happens, it is biased to anticipate something based on what you call status. But people are hired all the time based on status. College graduates over high school dropouts. I am sure that some of the latter will outperform some of the former, but the issue is one of probabilities.
I am not saying bosses shouldn't hire women of childbearing age. I am saying it is something that we have to address holistically as a society to make it work for the employers and employees. Otherwise, the "bias" will never disappear, whether or not it seems unfair..
1
At my last job, most managers bent over backwards to accommodate men and women with obligations to their children. Single, childfree people; not so much.
One of my single, childfree co-workers was dealing with a parent in hospice. She was using her vacation time to come in late or leave early in order to spend time with her dying father. As I was on her team, I can attest that she still got everything done. Nonetheless, "corporate" asked for some "headcount reductions" and while this woman had received good reviews, she was let go, because obviously, if she was able to take off that much time and still get her work done, there wasn't enough work to justify having the "headcount" on the team.
39
Absolutely agree. Decades as a woman in the workplace covering for those out on leave with newborns. But negative attitudes for those cooing with chronic illness in the family.
23
Don't blame the pregnant woman. Blame your employer, your state government, and our federal government for not providing adequate benefits for ANYONE who needs to take time off work for life events - parents dying, hospitalizations, having children, adoption, etc.
15
Where in my comment did I blame pregnant women? My point was that it's not just pregnant women and working moms that have this issue, and in fact, in many workplaces, the employer accommodates parents at the expense of the childfree. It has nothing to do with the parents that are the beneficiaries of these lopsided policies and everything to do with the administrators of them.
I was eight months pregnant with my second child when my boss asked me, in the context of a performance review, whether my priority was going to be my career or my family. He said it obviously couldn't be both and he was sorry that my opportunities going forward would be limited. He was very sympathetic and clearly unaware that he was saying anything inappropriate.
I complained to HR, but the incoming head of my department, a woman who was also a mother and had sat in on the performance review, demurred rather than support what I reported. (She employed two nannies for her one child and had a husband with a very lucrative job.)
I took my generous maternity leave knowing I couldn't go back, but it was really hard to give up my career. I sometimes think I should have fought harder, but I am indeed the career roadkill of discrimination against mothers.
10
In New York City, being a mom is now a protected status. The New York City Human Rights Law protects "caregivers," which includes moms and dads.
3
I find it interesting that there is a article about injustice and discrimination for moms. This in itself is discriminatory. I understand the need to focus on women's rights but that doesn't make the issues faced by parents, or single parents only the plight of just women. In a world determined to pull men out of the front seat of social issues, what about the men who are single parents? Should the rights and discrimination only be voiced about women?
7
Did you read the article? It points out that men, in fact, get higher salaries when they are fathers compared to childless men. So the discrimination is primarily a problem for mothers, yes.
6
Yes I read the article, I am a single full time dad. I might not have given birth but in my job its a work or stay home environment. I lose work and income for being a parent. To say that this only affects women is biased, because it affects me every week. Not only only do I have work place biases but when dealing with court issues or social service issues; I face a uphill battle because most men are viewed as the abusers, or absent parents. I might be a small minority of men in my position, but I still face the same issues as women while raising my child.
I agree mothers are shown a lack of respect, but I don't think that's limited to the workplace, and I don't think that's limited to mothers -- women in general are shown less respect. There's a flip slide to the writer's umbrage, however, and that's the lack of respect among women who are mothers toward women who aren't. I worked for three years in an office that was predominantly female, and they all had young kids. I was single, struggling with student loans and low pay, and was given the officious mom treatment. I thought I'd go nuts if I had to hear one more time about getting up in the middle of the night. I felt discriminated against because I wasn't a mom.
In another job, I constantly filled in for a man whose wife stayed home with her kids (except she was never home) and constantly expected him to leave work to help her. Every time I see her she laments that that office doesn't support families. Hers certainly was: by me.
For those of you scooting out the door to care for your families, could you just acknowledge that another co-worker is picking up the slack? Once in a while?
31
Dads with comparable responsibilities often encounter similar bias. In most cases, today's workplace is simply not family-friendly.
15
Many of the reactions here are from single workers who imply women have a "choice" about becoming mothers. The whole issue of "choice" is unhelpful and implies two implausible scenarios to solve the problem of having to "cover" for women who "choose" to have children: either all single working women choose to not have children or all women who have children leave the work force until no longer distracted by their children's needs (i.e. at least 18 years). Since our species would be harmed from the former and the overall work force would be harmed from the latter, the attitude of blaming working women for choosing to have children is pointless. Rather, focus should be on the employment demands which force other workers to over-compensate for people who have to take leave by the facts of life, which include not just pregnancy and children but all manner of incidences which call us out of the work place--cancer, aging/sick parents, weather disasters, car accidents, etc etc.
Maybe if our overall company policies weren't so lean and maximized for profit, operating with the least amount employees possible, workers wouldn't feel put upon when someone (anyone, not just mothers) has to be out.
32
For the sake of the argument, isn't it, though? Is pregnancy a biological imperative that is expected of every woman? What about wanting to have more than one child?
I do agree that most companies have horribly limiting policies towards maternity leave. I also agree that mothers in the workforce experience a greater burden, but that single people have burdens as well.
When there is a family emergency, yes, let's step up and help the community - we all benefit from that mindset. But is asking co-workers to cover for early soccer games, school-activities (muffins with mom, donuts with dad) on a regular basis is asking others to support your choice.
We all need work-life balance. there's no question. And I do hope that there becomes a more open environment for maternity/paternity policies. I hope there becomes a more open environment for family leave that involves elder care. But I can see that choice does play at least part of the role of this quandary.
8
I think choosing to become a mother is very different from the individual choices one makes after becoming one. A lot of the reaction I've read here is toward women who choose to become pregnant in the first place and take maternity leave, which I think is not helpful to the discussion, because pregnant mothers are a part of our society whether people like it or not. Most working moms I know (including myself) do not ask others to cover for things like soccer games and school activities, which I would whole-heartedly agree with you, are a personal choice which should not impinge on fellow workers.
I'm not a "feminist" because I don't know what it means. But I am a person (dude) who thinks that mothers are not fairly treated, during pregnancy and afterwards. At a time when for uncertain reasons maternal mortality is rising and pregnancy is riskier, we need to create special accommodations (universal childcare, workplace adjustments) for those women willing to have children. This article describes a special schism-- and its not the fault of the "patriarchy".....that needs to be addressed . Women carry the major burden for the perpetuation of the species. If you don't buy that, from a purely fiscal point of view, we will need more kids to grow up and pay for our social security! By the way the reason there are no high profile cases is because working mothers are too busy!
11
"...we will need more kids to grow up and pay for our social security! "
Sounds like an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
3
It is incredibly troubling to know that working mothers today are still at a disadvantage. Nearly 30 years ago, I was the first woman on my sales team to have a child. With my second child, I was allowed only 6 weeks of maternity leave and one manager questioned by commitment to the job because of my parenting responsibilities despite the fact that I was a consistent over achiever and he had awarded me for my performance. When I went over his head to question his actions, I was railroaded by the men to whom he reported. I have usually found that working mothers are the most dedicated and effective employees. Go #MomsToo!
9
While I personally do not wish to have children, I was recently discussing with my mother how it would be nearly impossible for me to do so in my current field. In order to move forward, not only does one have to put in the 8+ hours and do a good job, but also spend several hours a week outside the job networking. Even if the hours were not an issue, the amount of money it costs to continually attend networking events is significant. Couple that with stagnating wages and I cannot feasibly see how I could support a child.
6
Funny, women have been doing this for years and you think it is an impossibility? I worked full time, volunteered with my professional organization and attended its networking events, several community organizations, bond committees, had a Scout troop , and renovated an historic house. Our daughters are grown, smart, well adjusted and college educated. My secret weapon: my husband was completely involved and handled half the housework, childcare, and cooking, all while advancing to executive management. snowflake...
5
I was not told of, nor offered the opportunity to apply for a position that would lead to succeeding my boss. When I asked Her why I was not told of the opportunity SHE told me that I had a young child at home so I must not be interested. Kicker: My boss was the GENERAL COUNSEL. So, I applied and was not selected. Who was? The father of three with a stay at home wife. I'm gonna get me one of those.
17
As a thirty-something currently childless (but considering crossing over) woman, this is a really interesting issue. Among the women I have worked with, mothers always put in fewer hours at the office-- you can't physically work sixteen hours a day and have a relationship or family. Consequently, there is a lot of resentment when women get pregnant as the rest of the workplace knows they won't be able to extract those extra hours from her.
Sadly, I think both sides are right - working parents of both genders, should not have to put in the crazy hours. Coworkers aren't wrong to be resentful when they are asked to do more overtime than family-having colleagues. The problem is asking people to work 60-80 hours a week to begin with, and then expecting they maintain that degree of "dedication" for any kind of career advancement.
If everyone worked reasonable hours and was not asked to bring work home, it would be a lot less noticeable and a lot less problematic to the team / job when someone had a baby and spent off hours raising children.
47
Nearly everyone mother I know who works fewer hours at work also starts working again at home at about 8.30 pm. Just because it's not in the office doesn't mean it isn't work.
5
Jane, that scenario works for professional women but not for a lot of others. Administrative staff often do not have the option of working from home.
3
Working mom with 3 kids here. I have never worked in an place where if my work didn't get done due to some kid issue there was another person available to pick up the slack. It was all on me, as it should be. And this is why projects and other deliverables had to be completed early, because you never knew when some emergency would come up and throw a monkey wrench into the schedule.
Despite completing all my work, never missing a deadline and never turning down a business trip, I was told that there was a perception that I contribute less than the rest of the team. No specific examples were provided, because as my male boss explained, it was just a perception. And so, when layoffs came, I was the sacrificial lamb for my department. Within 6 months, my two co-workers, previously childless, both became pregnant with twins! Bed rest, hospital stays, extended leaves, you name it. Male boss was beside himself. After a year, one was laid off and the other left on her own accord.
8
In over thirty years of working, I have consistently seen allowances made for both men and women who have children. Single people, however, always have to pick up the slack. How about some benefits for single people for a change. Maybe a few extra days off for single people to balance out the disparity.
52
As I was reading through these comments--my favorite part of thought-provoking articles like this on the NYTimes--I was again so grateful to have been overseas when my children were babies and toddlers. There is no question of priorities or balance. Family comes first, end of story, even for those who were single, younger or older. If your family is not your priority, its highly irregular.
My job was extremely demanding. I remember being up often times up in the middle of the night working while holding my newborn in the cross of my criss-crossed legs. But I also picked up my toddler from pre-school every day and ate lunch with her at home before returning to work in the afternoon. No one blinked. No one had to cover for me. No one insinuated that I wasn't getting my work done. I was. And well. But not having to think about what came first--my career or my kids--made it FAR easier to get my work done and not resent it.
I don't understand America's obsession with a culture of work that is entirely about hours spent working, or growth for the sake of growth. I believe that mindset is going to lead to the end of us: increasingly isolated humans living on a planet covered in plastic. Sounds great, no?
40
I forgot to add in my original post that this idea of priority being family wasn't only for women. It was everyone. And although we were living in a country in Southern Africa with alot of work to do in terms of gender equality, in many ways, they are far ahead of the states in ensuring fair and equitable workplaces.
5
As we raised our children I would bring them to work with me (as a school teacher) once they were old enough for kindergarten. I was the school librarian so they hung out in the library, before and after school. I am glad the principles had no problem with that
4
As someone who was a childless professional until 35, I'm always astonished by the resentment some childless-by-choice people have over working with people who have children. Having to cover for colleagues who take maternity/paternity leave, need to be home with a sick child, and scheduling around families' vacation times seem to be the most common complaints.
Getting paid back by Social security is the least of it. It's possible, at some point, that a childless person will need to take time off from work to care for a sick/aging/dying partner, parent, sibling, or friend. A parent with teen or adult children may be willing and able to help cover for your work then. After I raised my two sons, I went back to work as the ED of a small environmental nonprofit and routinely worked 50-60 hours a week by choice. I also made it my mission to support everyone on my staff - the childless millenial, the 30-something mom of three, and the 55 year old with health issues.
"What goes around, comes around" and "It takes a village to raise a child" are not just platitudes. Most of us, after all, live and work with others in businesses, communities and society and not as isolated individuals. Who knows, the child of a parent co-worker you covered for when you were 30 may end up being the surgeon who performs emergency open heart surgery on you when you're 65.
21
Carrie...
I have never had a problem covering for a mother who is out due to a child related issue. However, when my sister was terminally ill and my mom was dying (all within an 18 month period), management gave me a very hard time. My co-workers were great but I was questioned when I had to leave the office abruptly when my sister took a bad turn. My manager actually called me while I was sitting with my sister as she received chemo. The stress level this caused affected my health. Thankfully, here in NY, we have a new Family Leave program for situations like this, but the resentment still exists.
We ALL need to be flexible for ALL family situations.
35
Until "across the board" Federal laws in America are enacted to protect working women and men in this area allowing for reasonable time off and some sort of job guarantees upon return, this nonsense will continue. Republicans espouse "family values" yet, they do everything in their power to negate it, often as a result of pressure from corporate benefactors who want none of this to happen.
When it comes to this important matter, compared to the rest of the Western Industrialized economies, America pretty much remains alone.
11
As a person who worked full time while raising 3 children with my husband who also worked full time, I find today's moms in the workplace to be difficult. Planning ahead, I had child care and backup (not relatives - none lived anywhere near me) in place. I was expected to be at work on time daily and I was. As was my husband.
My experience with moms in my office is nothing like that. They have myriad reasons for being out all day or part of the day. They come late and leave early. Their commitment to the employer does not take any prime place in their day. If Little Mary needs to be picked up, they trot off early. Phone calls go unanswered. Deadlines disappear. Colleagues pick up the slack. None of these are single moms, either. Apparently, Mom's work is not as important as Dad's, so the company that suffers is ours.
44
Bingo. There is this unwritten taboo against mom- or dad-shaming when work isn't getting done and everyone else has to pick up the slack. We can't have an honest conversation about discrimination against moms in the workplace if we can't get be candid about work not getting done due to external commitments. If a childless person displays teamwork and picks up the slack and, Buddah forbid, actually gets rewarded/promoted for working harder, this is now perceived as a slight against parents rather than an accomplishment by hard working individuals.
17
This is interesting. I would ask you to reconsider your statement that "I find moms in the workplace to be difficult" especially as compared to your last statement " Mom's work is not as important as Dad's." I don't think is so much about Mom's as it is about the recent 5 steps back many men/Dad's have taken around equal child care and planning. I think it has to do with the backlash men have felt from their colleagues and employers when equally prioritizing Mom's work.
Sorry, but while there might be discrimination against mothers at some companies, at every place I've worked mothers have been given extra help, time off for taking care of children, work from home options and other perks that haven't been given to single childless women. All while receiving the same salary as the single women who are at the office more and pick up extra work to help these working mothers have a work/life balance. This is never discussed because it's considered politically incorrect to bring it up.
72
I, a mother of two, once covered for a childless woman who was out a lot one year because her elderly mother was ill and dying. It goes both ways.
10
Everyone has problems. Everyone gets sick. Everyone has a life outside of work. The idea that one is a slave who must do NOTHING but work is preposterous.
1
These comments are infuriating. There seems to be a feeling that carrying the extra load for a co-worker who misses work for say, cancer treatment, or to care for a terminally ill family member, is acceptable as that is not a "choice." The problem is that while couples (and sometimes single people) do choose to have children, there is never an option for the male partner to be pregnant. My husband has the same two kids that I have - but I was pregnant, gave birth, and went on maternity leave both times (unpaid in the second instance as I now work for the federal government, which does not offer paid maternity leave). I would have been more than happy for him to enjoy the weight gain, reflux, constant peeing, and 12 hours of labor, but I didn't have that choice. If my co-workers had to pick up my slack, his didn't. And it all balances out because my male co-worker who has kids didn't take maternity leave either, or have OB/GYN appointments. Let's remember how the babies get made before we make this all about women in the workplace.
21
For all of those bemoaning the burden that working moms place on co-workers and company bottom-lines, I would just ask that they be honest about the alternatives to creating a more equitable and supportive workplace (for all parents and other caretakers): either women will stay at home to raise children and the workforce and economy will lose out on their knowledge and earning potential, or they will chose not to have children and the workforce and economy will lose out on future generations' knowledge and earning potential. Let's think big picture folks.
22
I'm sorry but if there is a spouse in the picture perhaps the two of them could you know work out a schedule where ALL the parenting doesn't have to be done by the mother. I took two of them to produce the child didn't it? Why must the burden be placed on her?
3
In my experience moms don't have it so bad.
My workplace claims to be "family friendly". In my workplace, parents can add an unlimited number of children to their health insurance policy and our employer will pay for the majority of the cost. I am divorced and childless by chance and I don't have the option to add anyone to my insurance. Those with spouses and children receive this benefit but I don't.
My employer is also very flexible with unplanned time off for parents. Everyone smiles at parents heading over to the elementary school for a school play or to stay home with a sick child. Yet I can't take off a day to visit my family out of state without a major hassle. My employer is only family friendly to those with children.
44
No doubt that pregnancy and parenthood often take time and attention away from work. But women should not be punished for procreating. Men sure aren't. We need to find ways to accommodate the demands that motherhood places on women, rather than denying that those demands impact and possibly conflict with work demands.
Flexible work hours and greater potential for employment and promotion after the child bearing years would go a long way. So would educating businesses on the opportunity cost/lost human capital of not accommodating the needs of working mothers. When we accommodate mothers, we help our children, too.
8
I left a national firm 12 years ago that made very little accommodation for working mothers, and instead, accepted a job at a small firm making much, much less but that would provide me with flexibility to meet the needs of my children. I was one of many young mothers who left that large firm in several short years, In fact, only one young woman who I started practicing with is still there, and she is a non-partner member of a very insulated specialty practice group that has allowed her to work as a contract attorney. Now that my children are little older, I would like to find a position that offers me more challenge and career satisfaction (as well as more pay), but it is VERY difficult to ever return to where you started or somewhere comparable. It is worth noting that my husband, who is a partner at a national firm has not been effected or derailed by childrearing. While this happens to be the result of choices that my family made, men have little societal pressure or expectation to be really present for their children. Women are pressured (and demeaned even) for not breastfeeding, for putting children in daycare, etc. From the sum of many of the comments here, we do have a greater need for education on how to keep women in the workforce (should they wish to be) and how not to punish them for leaving or stepping back to care children (when clearly, someone has to).
2
In my several decades of private and public sector work, workers including me, have taken earned time off to care for newborns and children as they have grown. This is normally a shared responsibility for both parents. However, when I was in the service, my wife had all the responsibility and bless her for it.
Parents are not asking for any special time off that others are not able to use if the medical need arises. They may be thinking about their children at work. Considering that something like 6 million worker watch March madness at work and people feel they can shop online or text with their friends at work, I wonder if the anti-mom folks are creating a double standard regarding distracted behavior.
12
When the proverb says it takes a village to raise a child, it meant a village- whatever larger community in which the family is embedded, including, in this case, work.
No, we cannot discount the economic impact and spillover effect that having kids has on businesses and colleagues. Yes, it means other people have to take up the slack. Yes, it means risking a decrease in productivity. And yes this also doesn't work if the village says "it's not my kid and not my responsibility in any way, shape, or form to help".
This attitude can make it difficult to explore alternative work strategies such as telecommuting or flex hours that might mitigate some of the impact that having a child has on work.
In the end, raising a child, especially early on, is purely sacrificial- a lot goes into it, very little of material worth comes out. The question is whether we want this to fall solely on the family/mother who is also trying to/needs to work, or whether society finds it of worth to help out.
Like with a lot of things today, I think most would say that they want to help out and that programs should exist to do so, but when push comes to shove, NIMBY.
4
I have found in my professional world that men with children are not paid more, while still being criticized by the childless for taking time to share parental responsibilities, such as staying home with a sick child or during a school break. Fortunately, my wife, who is a teacher, works in a more tolerant world. I always try to remind the childless that their Social Security depends on the number of people working, i.e. younger than they are, when they retire.
3
John how could you possibly know enough about men's salaries to make a blanket statement that "men with children are not paid more"?
1
Because I know my industry and when I ran a department in that industry, family status was never brought into the equation when deciding salaries and raises.
I am a working mother. I worked through two pregnancies. Maybe some days I was distracted, tired. I was never preoccupied beyond my ability to perform my duties.
If the problem was non-performance of duties, then this is the reason she was fired, not her pregnancy.
I just sat in an office for 45 minutes listening to two clerks blab about real estate the entire time. They actually asked a third worker to answer the phone, so they could "take care of business". I can imagine a situation where the conversation could be about pregnancy.
6
If you read the examples in the opening paragraphs carefully, in each case the employer/supervisor was projecting that there would be a future performance problem as result of pregnancy and/or motherhood. That is quite different from acting on actual (non)performance. It is called prejudice, from "to prejudge", and acting on such assumtions is discrimination.
I agree that in my years as a worker and manager I have seen nonperformance from parents and nonparents if that was what you meant to say.
2
There is a slight tinge of sexism in this article. I am a male and a parent, and I have had to adjust my schedule just as much as my wife to make sure our children are properly cared for. For example, we take turns on sick days to take care of an ill child. I had a boss once who would not allow me to participate in the flex time program because he felt my wife was responsible for the children. I told him that I was being discriminated because I had a family, which suddenly opened the door for me to report to work at 9:00AM instead of 8:00AM. Apart from pregnancy, many of these issues should be come under the heading of family life issues.
14
In many cases, men's status in the workplace goes up when they take on family responsibilities (the "good guy" effect - men are seen as magnanimously "helping" the wife), whereas for women it usually goes down. This has been demonstrated empirically, although I don't have time to chase the reference at the moment.
12
That’s certainly not the case where I work. Early on, my boss made the threat that if I ever became a father (he sees any employee activity outside of work - family, college, second jobs, hobbies- as an unacceptable distraction that damages his business) he would personally give me a vasectomy with his pocket knife. It all comes down to an entitlement mentality. That you are owed something for gracing the workplace with your skills, knowledge and presence. It affects not only distractions but also time off and wage demands. We would be far better off as an economy if we made a negative birth rate our goal and focused our lives on the bottom line. After all, every other measure is subjective.
Your boss was being sexist and you responded appropriately, which is great. I don't get why you think the article is "tinged with sexism." The author is not being sexist by reporting how things are. The data show that having children causes economic harm to mothers but not to fathers, on average. The fact that you've chosen to step up is great for your family. But there are lots of other families who could benefit from reducing the barriers mothers face at work. It is important (and not sexist) to understand the general bias against mothers which is demonstrated by the data.
2
Marlene D.
Congratulations. I do appreciate your comment!!!!
Thank you, from a tired working mom of three.
77
I'm a mom, working full time in a very low paying industry because it gives me the flexibility I need to work from home as needed. As my last child is graduating high school I am now looking for a more demanding, better paying job. I know my salary will never be what it could have been if I had pursued a different career path, but it wasn't reasonable for me or my family. I'm looking forward to the next chapter.
6
Best of luck! Wish you much success in this new chapter of your life.
1
Great. A podcast for millennial moms. Glad you discovered this is a thing. We've been dealing with it for a decade +
#genx
12
I had a teacher colleague who had her advanced placement classes taken away from her because it was assumed she could not handle the work load after having twins. Another woman made that decision on her behalf. Education is supposed to be a female-friendly environment where much of the leadership is also made up of many women. Unfortunately they are also quick to discriminate, based only on assumptions, not data - which is what they have been trained to prize above all else when it comes to students.
Let's not even talk about sick days - women ought to get pregnancy days that are separate from sick days. (I say this as a woman without children) Why should women have to use up their sick time to go to the doctor for pre-and post-natal visits? They get the same amount of sick leave as men, who will use theirs up if they have the flu, or have knee surgery. Otherwise they can save it up. Women with children will rarely have days saved up because they will have had to use the days for pregnancy-related issues. Pregnancy is NOT an illness. It is pregnancy.
11
Since the invention of birth control, pregnancy has become entirely voluntary and if I can lose my job for not answering the phone at 2:00 in the morning or get a dressing down based only on a (false) rumor that I was secretly taking college classes, then you can face whatever your boss directs your way for a pregnancy.
3
Cool, from where you sit is endorsing illegal discrimination. Charming.
Calling it voluntary misses the point. Believe me, I bet every woman wishes they could foist the burden of pregnancy onto their husbands.
1
Aged well beyond pregnancy years, I found this article interested me both as an historian and participant who lost out between the age of 26 (when had two children three years apart) and early 40s, make that 50s. Initially, I worked part-time in work force as well as full-time in the home and wasn't worried about Social Security as it was then (pre 1983) based on top three years of earnings. Didn't know they were going to change the rules. Next, the prejudice by college history departments was tokenism at best for women, average 10% of history faculty as late as 1990s.
Upshot? My Social Security is poverty level today because I could never make up those years, even though you are allowed ten zero years, given so many part-time years in college teaching where colleges began exploiting part-timers while reducing tenured faculty just as women began entering that level of teaching. e.g. paid $3000 or so per course at CU Boulder and CSU even in 21st century,classes 40-120 student, no status, no office, and tiring to teach more than two a semester! Yet a Ph.D. and as many publications as tenured faculty.
My generation, the Women's Lib Generation, got screwed --- by Reagan Republicans in the 1980s changing the rules for Social Security and starting to break the unions.
17
This is a challenging area because as a society, there are conflicting goals. On one hand, it is both foolish and wrong to assume pregnancy and motherhood is equivalent to less ability/drive at work. On the other hand, pregnancy and motherhood "do" have a negative impact on your performance. Biology (pregnancy) and culture (motherhood) basically force an occasional absence, distraction or illness that otherwise would not occur. That has to hurt work performance at least a little. So we have a legitimate conflict that we have to make a choice how to resolve. Reasonable people differ where to draw the line.
7
I am a mother and a top performer at my job - I actually got better at my job after I had kids. I am also the president of the PTO. These things are all my choice, but don't tell me that having children has to affect your job performance.
4
You sound as if your heart is in the right place. However, to state that motherhood and pregnancy have a negative impact on performance is EXACTLY where the bias has its roots. It is that pervasive perception rather than pointing to where the real challenges for mothers in the workplace are and resolve those that keep this unfortunate debate going.
2
I don't get the reference to the "Anita Hill style hearings". You mean the ones where she was humiliated and made to look like a liar for daring to testify under subpoena? That's supposed to help? Maybe 20 years later?
8
Am I biased against mothers if it annoys me to find breast-pumping paraphernalia on the rodent dissection bench??
That bench is for dissecting rodents.
17
What should annoy you is that a breastfeeding mother must use the rodent dissection bench.
2
These articles in the new york times always illicit thr same barrage of comments from men and women without children. An underlying false convictions that their colleagues with children burden other workers by working less and taki g more time off. A conversation without the their HR department would clear up their misguided belief system fast. People without children take tremendous amount of time off for holidays, long weekends, friends weddings etc. They show up late after a big night out and leave early to get to exercise class or happy hour. It’s constant and every working mom I know sees this at their workplace but these people think they are entitled to do so because they are hardworking unlike those moms sponging off their labor. Working moms work twice as hard and we are twice as efficiently. . we have to be. We have a family to support and we know we have a target on our back af work
12
Yes but that's a choice they made when they decided to become parents. When you choose to bring another life into this world, you also chose to take responsibility for that person. People without children are choosing to live their life the way they want--I'm not sure why you think they should have to sacrifice for a choice you made. If they want to take long vacations or weekends, attend friends' weddings, etc. that's their choice just like it's your choice to have a kid. What's not fair is to expect your childless colleagues to make up your slack and not get better compensation. No one is saying parents are sponging off of their colleagues' labor, just that those who don't have kids are expected to work holidays (depending on your profession of course), work later (because they don't have kids), etc. And just because people might not have kids doesn't mean they still don't have a family.
18
Did you read my comment? It is not about personal choices (though debatable how many working mothers chose to have their children) - it's about people without children taking off excessive amounts of time unchallenged by people like you and many commenters who think that's fine when it's time off for a wedding, travel, long weekends etc - but when a woman uses her time off for family reasons - that is what people like you and so many commenters. Befriend someone in your HR department - they will tell you how it really is - and not how a warped sexist view of mother is - single people take off way more time for whatever they do then moms. We need the jobs - we have everything to lose if we get fired. And we never do happy hours and fitness classes - we WORK!
So where does the so-called right to life crowd stand here? Against birth control, against abortion but for motherhood--at a woman's peril. Wonder what maternity benefits Hobby Lobby and their ilk offer.
Shame!
18
Women and men in Italy and other European countries get a year off when they have a baby. Even if they don't have a baby, they get a month off. And ten or so other days, in addition to national and religious holidays.
The U.S. is overrun by corporations and their greedy management. They pay Congress to favor them over the working people of the nation. And we allow it.
20
I am one of the many women (a lawyer) without children who has had to work harder and longer to cover for pregnant women or mothers (also lawyers) whose first priority was always their family. Nothing is more irritating than women discussing diaper brands when they should be talking case law! As a lawyer, your first priority should be your client! Hahaha for that when children need to be fetched. No wonder so many childless people are fed up! Even when extra support is provided, women in particular are often unreliable when there is a child on the radar. That is the "baby" in the room.
171
I am an employment lawyer working in the public sector. I am a woman with no children. I have taken a total of 1 day off this calendar year for vacation because I have so much work assigned to me. My coworkers with children have all taken multiple vacations and somehow manage to take half days and full days on the regular. I am fairly confident that I am assigned more difficult clients and time consuming projects because I don't have a family to compete with my work.
54
I've practiced close to 30 years as a prosecutor, big law attorney in NYC and the Midwest and now in house. I've never had the experiences you're describing. In fact, quite the opposite. I've traveled with the mothers of newborns, had a partner who was giving last minute instructions to a client in the delivery room and worked day in and day out with lawyers who worked into the wee hours every night after tucking in their kids.
47
I'd be willing to bet those moms all have husbands who have absolutely no parental leave, and likely don't even have parental leave themselves. Even assuming what you claim is actually true: this isn't caused by women having children, it's caused by society failing to care for working mothers. What stopped your firm from hiring a temporary replacement?
46
In the culture of the United States - "moms" sit directly to the right go God.
Not listening.
5
I am confounded when I read, "'She was way too focused on her pregnancy. It was distracting her.' This woman ... was ... admitting to illegal discrimination."
Isn't the woman giving a valid, or possibly valid, reason for why the other woman was fired? It's because she was not doing her job properly. How is that unjust bias or discrimination? Is it wrong to discriminate against employees who are not focused on or distracted from their work?
What I can't understand is how a piece in the New York Times, even an opinion piece, can start, right off the bat, with such an obvious lapse in critical thinking. What am I missing?
14
Employment lawyer here. Yes, it is a possibly valid reason, but one that's risky.
2
It's very hard to answer that question without more info. What was it about her behavior that led her supervisor to conclude that she was being "too focused" on her pregnancy? If it was a performance issue, then say so. But if it was an unwarranted assumption about how pregnant women behave, then the firing was discriminatory. Again, impossible to know without more info.
1
It's the last line of her comment that is problematic, as it exposed her jumping to conclusions regarding what this future Mom's likely behavior would be.
"I didn’t think she was going to be committed enough to the job, so I had to let her go.”
Pregnancy is temporary - just like the Superbowl is temporary, or figuring out what to do with a parent with dementia.
"He was way too focused on his Mom's diagnosis. It was distracting him"
2
"Last fall, I was in a meeting with a leader in women’s health, discussing re-entry-to-work programs for new mothers when, out of the blue, she began complaining about a former employee. This employee on their small team had gotten pregnant, the woman said — and it was a problem: “She was way too focused on her pregnancy. It was distracting her. I didn’t think she was going to be committed enough to the job, so I had to let her go.” I looked at her, stunned. This woman — a mother herself — who worked on a range on initiatives to support women was openly and casually admitting to illegal discrimination, against another mother."
The NYT has published no end of articles re men who considered themselves feminists and were sometimes active in various support initiatives yet at the same time were predators at worst and guilty of sexual harassment at best.
In addition to what Ms Goldstein writes, hypocrisy and sanctimonious self-righteousness of employers, especially women and mothers themselves (!- If I managed then you can) makes the situation even more difficult.
3
It is "bias" if it really does detract from a person's work?
13
It is bias if there is no evidence of it.
1
We haven't heard from mothers much probably because they're too busy and exhausted to add campaigning to their plate. There should be a bonus for working as a mother, for having 2 jobs.
5
Oh, puhleeze! I've been a working mom my whole life. Most of the women I know make work for themselves by doing everything for their kids/husbands/schools. Husbands need to share the load. Kids need to help with chores. Crockpots need to be loaded up at night. Outside sports/activities need to be limited to what the family can manage without going crazy? It's all about making choices. Neither the government nor your company can (or should) help you manage your family life.
3
Undoubtedly, much of this is true. I know that work is going to have to change in many ways to better accommodate working women with children (and dads for that matter).
However, I am a single woman, never married, no kids who has been in the working class world of office work (admin support, mainly) for over 40 years and I have no sympathy for this. I am old now and get a little "old lady privilege" but spent decades being stepped on, around and over so that so and so could look after their, kids, husbands, homes, yada, yada, yada. Always had the worst schedule, always had to stay when others could leave early, never got any slack (well, she was late 'cause blah, blah with her kids') yuk yuk.
I guess people just assumed that I had no other life that meant anything to me whatsoever and that I lived in a box somewhere on-sight (you can't leave early for this blizzard 'cause so and so has to go now because they gotta be there for their kids, who will cover the office?). Don't care if you fall and break your neck; you don't have kids to care for so who cares.
I know I am beating this to death (and I have seen it from the other side growing up with a divorced working mom and a seriously ill sibling) but I've been beaten to a pulp with the this for too many years. Moms, when push comes to shove I'll be on your side but I needed to get this off my chest.
37
Thank you for your comment. I was a legal secretary in the 80s and 90s and didn't have children then. I had the same experiences that you did. I was constantly covering for other secretaries who left early or came in late because of sick children, etc. Life in a law firm doesn't end at 5:30 when there is a big case going on. The secretaries without children were expected to cover for all of these mothers with young children and we got no thanks from the mothers or the lawyers.
18
I was always covering for the men who left early to go to the game, meet the guys for happy hour, who came in late because happy hour stretched into the wee hours and they were hung over....and for the singles who took long weekends, left early on Friday to beat the traffic to their summer share in the Hamptons, had to have the morning off to go to their real estate closing, took long lunches to fit in their aerobics classes...And guess what? No thanks came my way for that. Strange, huh?
Companies should also provide pathways for employees to rejoin the workplace as part-time or temporary employees, maybe filling in for people who are now having kids, or having sick parents or going through a health or burnout crisis.
That solves several problems:
overworked colleagues
reentry of employees who need time off
especially those who do not want long work hiatuses to destroy their careers !
people who have interests outside of work
Why let good people go ? Job sharing makes sense, whether seasonal or working 2x20 ..
Also if your business grows, you now have a big Rolodex of people who may come back.
4
I have "picked up the slack" for my childless colleagues many times for a variety of reasons. In my limited experience, the working moms I know (mostly lawyers) are the hardest working, and the most efficient. I am lucky to have had employers who seem to know this - and are willing to give me the schedule I need to be a mom and be a good employee. My current boss is a particularly awesome example (he has 4 young kids). He has guaranteed my loyalty as a result. Give good workers what they need to be happy. Your business will thank you.
8
You can call it bias, I call it 'annoyance at having to pick up the slack for someone who cannot pull their weight because of a self-inflicted and avoidable condition'.
Fortunately in my country a woman can easily get paid sick leave for most of her pregnancy if she feels too ill to work - not many questions asked - so it's not really a problem here. Most of my female co-workers went on sick leave several months before delivery. After birth, they get to stay home for another year, being paid by the state, and then can go back to their old job which is guaranteed by law. Best solution for all: Mothers can do their thing and the rest of us don't have to suffer for it.
115
If everyone chose to "avoid" this "self-inflicted" condition then there would be no one to work at all in 50 years. No issues in the workplace then, no one suffering because of mothers "doing their thing".
30
exemplifies the open, casual disdain for mothers. as if functioning human beings appear spontaneously on your business's doorstep the moment you need them, with education, work ethic, and money that fell from heaven. sure is annoying how people try to balance priorities and accomplish multiple things that benefit society but are different from what I personally value.
true enough, countries should recognize family and personal leave - for child care, elder care, volunteering, taking a sabbatical, inventing a new business, giving it back for overtime and cash, I don't care. it only makes sense for society that we use our advanced economies to allow people to enrich their lives. it's basic decency for us all to recognize this would enrich us, too.
12
rb, that's a ridiculous argument - because it has never happened and never will happen.
But having to pick up the slack for co-workers who are pregnant or have young kids - and being denied time off for one's own needs, even vacations because of all the time off taken by others - that's real and happens all the time.
2
I lost my job in 1991 because I was a single mom. It was awful. I had a three yer old and my company had just been sold to a larger conglomerate. The new boss got rid of me because I couldn't work around my regular 40 hour a week schedule. I had to get to my day care provider each day on time or I would be fined and eventually "fired" from them as well. At the time, I was suing my daughter's father for child support and was told that because I worked at an "at will" company, they could fire me for no reason at all. (We have recovered, I am completing my 27th year with another employer, looking forward to retirement and my daughter, now 30, a college graduate, is doing beautifully.)
5
#MomsToo - I killed myself working to earn a PhD in Information Technology at a major stte university while raising two little girls. I earned a tenure-track university position and did all the right things to earn tenure. BUT, there were powerful men in my department who a) didn't think women belonged in the field, b) didn't think mothers belonged in the work force, and c) didn't think single mothers belonged in polite society. They worked through back-office politics and the rumor mill to deny me tenure. I have been last hired-first fired through the recession, and now I teach high school computer science in Indiana. I make $40,000 a year.
4
As someone who CHOSE to have two planned C-sections with 5 weeks of unpaid maternity leave X 2 in order not to disrupt her career or earn the ire of co-workers and supervisors, you'd think I might be bitter. No. The gamble paid off. I have a GREAT career now. Sure, I went in the hole financially for a while paying nannies and I could not sustain nursing, but the long-term financial rewards have been worth it. I can afford college for my kids AND retirement. And you know what? My kids are happy and healthy just like the moms who took long maternity leaves, nursed forever, and tanked their careers.
My advice to young women is to approach motherhood with a long-term strategy in mind. Don't crumble under the pressure to be a mother-goddess in those early, trying years. Power through and reap the rewards of staying the course. I *promise* your children will not suffer as much as you think they will. They are far more adaptable and resilient than we give them credit for.
12
I did it your way and also was successful. My kids LOVED having a mom who didn't devote every atom of her being to them and are super proud of my accomplishments outside the home. We always had a home cooked supper together as a family because I cooked on Sundays for the entire week and everyone had chores. Our family chose to be a team that pulls together instead of having a mom/martyr run the show. I have never heard so much complaining about how hard motherhood in my life. These gals should have been moms in the 1950s like mine was, cooking all meals from scratch, putting up vegetables/jams, hanging clothes on the line to dry then ironing them, sewing clothes, and much more. Now THAT was hard.
8
Part of the bias is the implicit idea that, regardless of whether a woman wants to stay at home as a full time, stay-at-home parent, she SHOULD want to, and is judged negatively if she doesn't. Fathers are not seen as deficient in character if they don't make this choice.
7
This may offend the conventional wisdom here, but maybe it's not worth it for mothers to immediately return to the workplace. They make a tiny, squirmy thing that needs 24-7 care, for six months minimum. That's a lot of time to expect other workers to cover for you, and why should they do extra free work for a completely elective life decision (which accidents, aging parents and surgery are not)? No matter how supportive the partner (with luck, there is a partner), the vast majority of responsibility is still going to fall on the mother. Instead of insisting a new mother should try to rush back to the workplace as soon as humanly possible, why not acknowledge and respect the caregiving they are doing as mothers? Maybe we could as a society pay people to stay home for a year or two and care for their own kids? Especially low-income parents, who have the worst options for quality childcare? Just throwing it out there..
9
In 1980, my boss (I was a waitress) told me to quit when I began to “show” — we had to wear pants suits and he couldn’t see how it would look good if I were pregnant. I went on to become a full time mom because of the cost of child care.
Last year my daughter, the same child I carried in 1980, bore a son, and fortunately both parents were able to use built up family leave to care for the baby when he was newborn. She is now back to work part-time. I am trying hard myself to reenter the job market.
Not only is discrimination against mothers real, it is more vital now to speak up because more young mothers are working. It is absolutely inexcusable.
I’d go further and pay mothers a stipend for raising children, but I’m not holding my breath.
Baby steps!
3
I have supported working Mothers my entire career.
This single childless woman was the gal in the office covering the operations, working very hard, for 12 maternity leaves over the decades. While it may have advanced my career as a team player, no management does not pay employees more money when they cover that 3 months out of the office for the coworker. And it can be so hard, I would of changed jobs if one coworker had another baby.
Of course I still support benefit leave for parents, but I can state that I never want to get stuck working that hard for 3 or 4 months again. To change the bias you need to change the impact on all workers. It also won't hurt if the Mothers thanked the coworker who covered the job when they return, only a few do.
32
Bias is an issue. But what causes the problem is lack of social support, no decent nursery care, inadequate paid leave and the lack of the father's involvement in child care. Sadly, pregnant women and mothers of small children often cannot do a 40+ hour work week. But it is certainly not because they are lazy but because they are alone expected to do it all. Men need to step up to the plate with their own young children. We need the social support programs seen in virtually all the European developed nations.
5
The first example noted is not the same as the following ones. The employee was said to be getting distracted and, implied, not meeting their job requirements. That seems like a good reason for possible termination, regardless of they "why" of the distraction.
Have a kid but still be prepared to do you job at the level needed.
5
On the other hand, years ago I survived a brutal round of lay-offs at the law firm where I was then employed and I have to believe it was because I had recently announced my pregnancy. I was fairly new to the firm and, therefore, an obvious choice for the ax, but I'm convinced the firm was nervous about a wrongful termination suit brought by a pregnant employee.
6
I support working moms, and dads. I sometimes find myself covering for one or the other and that's not a problem. As a dad of grown children I've been through it. What bothered me (infuriated me) was the opening paragraph of this article. If the mom-to-be was so obsessed with the baby that she couldn't get her job done then how is that different than someone who can't get their job done because of video games or porn or kitten videos? If you want to be equal, then be equal. Work as hard as others up until you you have to take family leave act time.
137
You say video games or kitten videos, but what about cancer? You equate pregnancy with some frivolous things.
5
This has absolutely happened to me. I am a high performer at my job and I work HARD, and have been told as much many times by my superior. The head of my division was a man, who had three children the exact same ages as my three kids. He treated me like dirt, because he felt that as a mother, I was not as dedicated to my job, even though I was the top salesperson in the country. I watched many men be promoted over me. I didn't get promoted or a raise until I went to HR, which I should not have had to do. Transparency of salaries would help in fields where you have demonstrable evidence of results.
12
I had my children in the '80s and worked in the type of industry where you were expected to come in by 8:30 a.m. for a traffic meeting and leave when the work was done. I was the only woman with children who worked there at the time, and made it clear I needed to leave--every night--by 5:30 pm. I was routinely chastised despite the agreement with my employer when I started the job. "Half day?" my co-workers would yell as I meandered down the hall, briefcase in hand with my copy of "Working Mother" (sigh) tucked firmly beneath my arm. Day in and day out, the same retort. Eventually, the children grew and the retorts grew weaker, especially when my manager--a man with a working wife--started his family. Small company, so when you complained to the personnel department, you complained to the owner's wife. Honestly, I don't know how I survived, that feeling of never being good enough as a worker or a mother. Or much of anything else for that matter. "Working Mother" helped but I only identified with the power-suited executives they covered so much. And as stated, I didn't work for a large, impersonal corporation. Like many others, I worked for a small company where the owners stalked the halls.
My advice to all working-outside-the-home mothers: Call people out on the retorts. Claim your position in the world. Don't strive to be perfect--suit up and show up and work hard and leave when you need to.
Regrets? I shouldn't have been so polite.
16
This is a deeper question than "women's issues." It is the question of whether family and sex is a social network that has rights and laws of its own, or whether we are all just isolated individuals (who might perchance have another isolated individual, called a child) which represents another "private interest" for which society (not the state, society--i.e., the employer and the culture of work) has no direct responsibility to nurture. Either we think of women -- and men -- as social beings inherently, or "isolated in their privacy" (to borrow the phrase of the king of isolators for women, Harry Blackmun).
5
There are legitimate grievances that employees have when a parent (usually a mother, unfairly), is absent or unengaged due to maternity leave or child care. As a childfree professional, I have many such stories. But this isn't the fault of the parent, it's the fault of the employer who refuses to plan for the reality of employing humans, and to a larger extent, the fault of a culture and economy that doesn't allow anyone to have a full life. We would be much more supportive of the needs of parents if theirs were not the only needs we were expected to care about.
There are many times in life when all of us need to take a professional step back, for children, elder care, mental and physical health, or any other very legitimate reason. Any solution offered must include all of us, or it will never work.
37
There is a larger societal priority to nurture child-bearing and support the mothers during pregnancy and post-partum. There is a conflict between this and the normal expectation of 100% effectiveness in the job for any employee accepting 100% of their salary and benefits. How to reconcile the two?
Men have been historically discriminated against for daddy-track behaviors. This is nothing new. American corporations are voracious in consuming worker's time and focus. It's justified under the rubric of competitiveness. Even your non-work hours are subject to the employer's gaze and approval. Parenting is considered a life-choice and treated as the work-life balance suicide note to a career.
At the once Fortune "best company to work for" a Senior VP threatened that if you want to work from home, the job will go to Asia just as easily and for far less cost. Chilling, but the cost of accommodation. China doesn't have these work-life balance issues, that's why they own $3T in US debt. What do you think stockholders want? Not work-life balance.
4
Wow, this is sadly a very "what's in it for me" thread. What happened to being a member of a team, sense of community, etc.? As in all instances, there a people who abuse situations- people who call in sick at the drop of a hat, people whose kids get sick every other monday, and i can see those instances being frustrating for the rest of the people in the office. But childless people get sick too. They go on vacation too. They leave to pursue other opportunities. Who picks up the slack in those intstances? Their coworkers (some of whom will have kids).
I am a working mother of two and yes, i did take my maternal leave. I also covered for my boss while she was out after surgery, a colleague who got sent to the head office for really great opportunity that gave him great visibility, took on another person's job (which i still have) in addition to my own work after they left the company. We all give and we all take- it is a simple reality.
So, if it makes you feel good, keep track of what you give, but don't forget to keep track of what you get. And stop taking it out on people with kids.
I am being generous and assuming that the criticism of working moms is being directed equally at working dads. And if it is not, then you should ask, why are you not incensed that more is expected of women?
14
It's hard to feel part of a team when you can get kicked off the team for no reason. Modern business practices have ruined team spirit.
5
And what of the non Mom's who must pick up slack?
it is not just in an office /business field.
As a medical resident, we had to continually cover, not just a project, but on call duties for months at a time, had to cover extra wings and floors of patient to accommodate Mom's and pregnancies.
i am not sorry to say that there are no part time patients, nor do we need part time doctors.
15
As a working mom, I have picked up the slack for parents and non-parents alike many times. I am just more efficient than the average worker because I have to be. Also, the reality is, people will have children, and businesses (hospitals included) are better off retaining those people in the long-term than encouraging them to leave with outdated work-life balance policies. Maybe you have to so a bit extra time to time, but in the long-term your employer will benefit.
7
Can't the hospital arrange the coverage needed for the parents when they need to be out to cover parental duties? Doesn't sound as though there's much interest in that angle - just blame the mother.
2
you need to find another profession. one that doesn't rely on empathy.
2
I am a woman and worked with women all of my life. I felt I had no bias against women but I suppose, over time, I simply got tired of being the woman without children and taken advantage of. I didn't get Christmas, Thanksgiving or any of those other "family" holidays off as I didn't have children. It gets old. Just saying.
48
Flexibility to accommodate employees needs, whatever they are, should be given to all, not just mothers and fathers because they have children. It's really a matter of setting expectations for employees and then holding them accountable for results. If that is achieved, why can't the workplace be more flexible.
14
Well said. This bias against pregnant women, as if they were rendered incapable of dealing with themselves let alone their job, seems prevalent indeed. This must be denounced and the need for solidarity re-enacted on a continued basis. We all have prejudices, here and there, but perfectly amenable for correction if our mind is open to be made aware via education...and good will. Being able to walk in each other shoes is of the essence.
1
It's not only an issue of mothers. The idea that a person should dedicate all his/her time to work is wrong morally and economically. With computerization and other factors there would not be enough jobs for everyone and the thinking should be to increase available jobs, while decreasing hours. This means a change in economic thinking, labor standards and mentality of the workers themselves. As an intermediate measure, mandated paternity leave for men, options to work percentage of the time etc. already applied in some European countries would contribute to increasing equality
16
One issue I experienced at our workplace was a young clerk who has miscarried twice, became pregnant again, and then was told to stay at the hospital for her ninth month at an estimated cost of more than $60,000. We were a small company and that one incident contributed to higher insurance premiums for everyone. Why pregnancy? Why not adopt? There are plenty of foster kids looking for loving parents.
11
The real question should be about why the United States still has the backward standard of employers paying for health insurance. And even then, we know how it happened -- needing perks for workers during the salary freezes of the Second World War, American Medical Association opposition to single-payer health care, a brutally effective campaign from the right to convince Americans that health care shouldn't be provided for the public good paid for with our tax dollars.
It's pretty disgusting that a slightly higher premium -- in the face of devastating losses and a month of the misery of bed rest -- leads you NOT to the conclusion that health care costs need to be tamed and health care financing is radically broken, but the conclusion that people are wrong to act on the common biological imperative to procreate and raise a family.
Are you a foster parent or adoptive parent? a. Adopting a foster child requires someone who specifically has the drive, energy, time, and resources to nurture someone who's been through trauma - and btw most foster kids go back to their original parents. b. Adoption overall is massively expensive - tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum - and a huge waiting game.
But sure, blame the woman who's undoubtedly saddled with medical debt after going through an awful experience for the catastrophe that is the American health care system.
43
Are you kidding? People have a right to have children! Wow, too bad it takes up more time than it does to adopt or take in foster kids.
You're mad at the wrong person. (Also, this was not an issue *you* experienced. This was another person's medical crisis. How self-centered can you be? You think she wanted to be on bed rest?)
Be mad at this country that insists on operating under a private insurance scheme.
Be grateful that you don't have to wreck your body to have children.
Realize that she's probably not thrilled about her insurance premiums being jacked up because of her obese old man's heart disease, stroke treatment, diabetes, or Parkinson's.....
Also be realistic- you know very well that most people feel a strong biological drive to have their own children. It's not like the choice between going to the movies and going to the park.
1
I would argue we are essentially discriminating against children with this workplace bias against mothers.
Some men in the workplace are also raising children by themselves, so I wonder if they are also less likely to get raises, promotions, and suffer bias as well?
The question is what organization wants to be known as discriminating against children, because that is what the organization is doing when it assumes the "child" will take away time from workplace commitment?
But, if there is a measurable drop-off in a parent's productivity due to problems with daycare or the child, some other compromise and accommodation may need to be made.
Some countries allow both maternity and paternity leave, so when a couple has a baby, one partner can stay home for 6 months or a year, then the other partner can do the same for the second year of the child's life. I believe some organizations in the U.S. also allow mothers as well as fathers to take a leave of absence. My bet is morale would be high in such organizations, or don't we care about morale?
A related issue is caring for disabled and aging family members. And there is a double penalty in our country. Quit your job to take care of an aging parent (thereby saving Medicaid costs for lots of older people who need help), but the caregiver not only does not get paid but loses retirement and Social Security benefits when she or he ages and retires.
We need to straighten out our priorities. $ vs people? Hint: it's not either-or
6
This is the 21st-century Catch 22. We need our brightest and best to apply themselves to be competitive in an increasingly competitive world. But to be competitive in the long run, we also need our brightest and best to have children.
Our society must face the fact that fully 50% of our brightest and best are women.
21
At least!
4
OK, so this is not recent. One of these happened in the 80s and the other in the 90s, but I was stunned that it happened in my lifetime. I know a software developer who worked at IBM during a layoff in the 80s, and she was told they were letting the women go first because some of these men have families to support (get back in the kitchen!). Another who worked at Anderson-Consulting, which became Accenture, her dream only to one day become a partner, and was she ever a shaker and a mover, but then they pushed her away from the big projects because, they said, You have decided to have a family, you don't want this (subtext being: because mother belong in the kitchen!).
10
I was always fascinated by the fact that men where I worked who had to take extended time off for National Guard duty or other military service were guaranteed that they would be able to return to their original job. Military service was considered necessary for the nation. Yet women were not assured of anything when they returned from having a child Apparently continuing the species is not considered important.
47
A really good point. Raising the next generation of healthy and productive people is as important to our national security as military protection.
10
My last job was at a university with a very liberal approach to new moms in the workplace. My boss took advantage of it. She routinely skipped out early when daycare fell through, missed every Thursday afternoon to drive her kids to piano practice, and took more sick and personal days then the rest of us combined. The rest of her team picked up the work. We not only resented her, we resented her husband who never seemed to be on the hook for mid-afternoon childcare emergencies.
If you and your spouse want children, and you both want to keep your careers, then figure out a way to share the home duties in a way that allows you both to still fulfill your work duties. If you can't figure that out then one of you needs to decide if work or children are going to take priority. If you choose children, it's not your employers job to cater to your whims, and it's not your co-workers' job to pick up your slack.
36
I never see any discrimination against moms in my professional accounting work place. The moms where I work leave at 5pm because they have to pick up their children from daycare and, by god, on time! The women without children have to stay and work late to show they are committed to the job and to pick up the slack. I find it maddening an a daily basis. I feel this article is shining a light on a small area of mothers in workplace.
25
The need for "on time" pick up from daycare is very real. Not only are there monetary penalties for being late, you can also loose your child's slot if you are repeatedly late.
3
I can't speak for your workplace, but I have seen time and time again the "staying late" argument for why mothers are slackers compared to their peers. My experience in the workplace has been that those same mothers are doing work from home late at night and early in the morning when their colleagues are out or sleeping. Just because you don't see them sitting in their office at 5pm doesn't mean they are doing any less work. Also, let's not act like its a virtue to regularly work late past business hours, its a major cultural problem that ANY of us--parents or not--accept that as a valid expectation on a regular basis.
8
If "on time pick up" is so important perhaps the spouses should share duties no? I completely empathise with JT. Husbands are part of the equation in parenting and should share in the tasks as well. Because some of us choose to be single and childless doesn't mean we are here to pick up the slack for those of you who choose, yes that's right choose to procreate.
2
I see the same arguments from those workers without children and those with children, 1) we have to pick up the slack, and 2) it shouldn't be so hard to have kids, there is a bias. What if the US co-opted some successful policies that other countries use to mitigate this working mama war? The French have daycare that is free or very low-cost. All children can go, learn, eat healthy meals and the parents are free to fulfill their job duties. Canadians and many Eurpoean countries give a much more generous parental leave, which is able to be covered by long-term temp workers. They are more valuable and necessary if your leave is for 6 months or a year instead of 4-8 weeks like here. So this eliminates the unfairness the child-free woman experiences by being made to cover her coworkers' maternity leaves. We'd have to pay for it with taxes. Early childhood education. Or for the leaves like an unemployment insurance concept, but we'd all be so much happier. Employers, child free workers, parent workers. It would be a benefit worth the cost. (And considering free early childhood education would free up exorbitant childcare costs for young families, I think we'd see a positive income boost for parents (though not so much for singles or child-free peeps, but the convenience might be worth the cost!)
6
Did ANY of the commenters citing personal opinion or isolated incidences as evidence of moms being less competent, less willing, less committed at work FOLLOW THE LINK proceeded in the article which refutes these assumptions? Or are they just too comfortable with their assumptions to allow objective evidence to dislodge them?
7
I began my career before there were leave protections for pregnancy disability, parental leave and (in Oregon) sick child leave. There were good reasons for the enactment of these protections, and, in any workplace I've been associated with, such leaves are an accepted part of life in the world of work.
And, yes, it is tough to find temporary workers to fill-in when someone takes protected leave, so the extra work is often redistributed to colleagues (both male and female) and nobody is particularly thrilled about it. Workers usually resume their jobs after taking their leaves, and life goes on.
I've noted over the last ten years an increasing tendency for returning workers to expect employers to accommodate their new lives, usually with a reduction in FTE, an extension of their parental leave, or intermittent absences that do not qualify for protection. When those requests are declined the worker becomes resentful, their performance lags, sick leave use increases, etc. If the requests are approved, over time their co workers become resentful. It's tough to navigate.
We seem to have raised a generation of folks who expect employers to assume the protective and accommodating parenting they received growing up in their homes. I wonder also if the academy fosters unrealistic expectations about the world of work. Many kids don't have a real job until after college, and they come to us often with no idea how to navigate a workplace and establish work relationships.
12
Yes! I'd like to think that our corporations might be more humane if there were more mothers leading them.
However, I'm going to call out that many corporations have generous maternity/paternity leave options and that parents enjoy child tax credits. Those of us without children do not get to take advantage of these benefits, and frequently shoulder the burden of those who do. In some environments you are viewed as an outsider if you don't have children, is that also not a bias?
This article was written by a millennial, and she's right to bring up this up as an issue. However, I'm guessing that eldercare isn't on her radar. Caring for a spouse or family member facing a sudden and unexpected life-threatening condition probably also isn't there either. However, any of these situations can adversely impact one's career, why aren't we also fighting against this?
10
Many people without children still have surgery, take vacations, get sick, and do other thing that require others to pick up slack. I have both parents and non-parents that work for me, and both take their share of time off and they pick up the slack for each other. My childless millenial could not have gone to Colombia for two weeks if her colleague with two small children, and her other colleague with a very sick parent, did not pick up her responsibilities. Treat your people like they are a part of a team, and they will behave that way.
2
I'm a 58 year old female, and have been working in corporate America since I was 22 . I knew early on that I didn't want kids, and it's been the single best decision, for me, in my life. I've worked with many moms throughout my career, and they have had a variety of approaches to working and motherhood. Most moms are professional day in and day out, and while they need time occasionally to take care of issues outside of work, they do what they need to do without a lot of noise around it. Unfortunately , there are a sizable minority, and in my experience they are mostly millennials, who act as though everything about them and their children, is on the level of the Second Coming, and expect that the entire business enterprise revolve around them and their needs. This is very difficult to deal with. Businesses are there to be in business, and it puts a burden on everyone else when the ongoing drama created by the mothers described above - and it is mostly millennials mothers, not their spouses - continually upends planning and preparation. The answer is not as easy as "hire extra temporary workers". In many cases , these people are working on detailed projects , which by default have to be put on hold until they return, and get into a working frame of mind - the latter as important as the former. This is not anti-mother bias. This is evidence formed by decades of observation and experience.
16
Or the company is too worried about lawsuits to do the right thing when arrangements are abused.
1
As part of the feminism behind #MomsToo, let's put to rest the term "Working Mothers," which implies that mothers who "stay" at home are not working. The patriarchal term denigrates domestic work by making it inconsequential and invisible. It's always amazed me that a mother who is paid to take care of another's home and children is a "working mother," but the one who does that work full-time for her own home is considered not working. Equality and opportunity for all female workers will come when the patriarchal term of "working mother" is retired for good.
8
There is an economic value to the childcare but everything else outside of those tasks everyone else is also doing on top of being employed outside of the home (cooking, cleaning, etc.).
The only different variable is a life choice to add extra burdens aka having kids.
Plus "working mother" is shorter than saying "mother working for outside salary".
4
Somebody has to be in the office to attend that mortgage meeting... sick person at home in need of caring, or not... Nothing personal. It's business.
And sometimes, the person who is there, present and active in the meeting, gets the raise and the promotion. Being there.
Sometimes women without unplanned issues at home are more reliable than those who have children with unplanned needs to meet. The people who do the work are rewarded. That's business too.
Men and women can work TOGETHER to decide their family and career priorities. If a woman wants to have an active and competitive career, then she will need to put the job before the children at times, and many families are unwilling to sacrifice this. Many women wait until the children have alternative arrangements -- daycare, school, jobs of their own -- before they commit to a career. Usually, it is best if the person parenting the children with them -- a man or another woman -- works together to balance family and career.
Sadly, no one person can be in all places and do all things. Women have choices, and must understand the concequences of free choice too.
70
No, no, no, no. It's not "business," it's discrimination. Your beliefs are at the heart of what is wrong with the society we have built. It's "business" because men have ruled the roost and never had to accept the true and real responsibilities of life. It's time to throw the old ways out and open your eyes to reality.
Women do not have to make these choices, which are not really choices at all. Men are parents, too. And we are all children of someone, and nearly all of us have someone we are responsible for or beholden to. Very few people escape the reality of some kind of family responsibility. It's time we changed our society and admitted that "business" is not the god of all things. Admit that men are equal partners with women in the care and feeding of the human race. Admit that single or childless people are also equal partners in the care and feeding of the human race.
We don't need 60 hours put in to obtain promotions. We need a society that makes people the most important thing.
66
Midway, you are not listening.
Women who chose to become parents are treated differently than men who chose to become parents. Women who are mothers are treated differently than women who are not mothers, in spite of their actual performance.
Women do have choices. The problem is, they are punished for their choices in ways that men are not. That is not opinion, that is what the research tells us.
29
Then they need to get better agreements with their partners to split the childcare. Because I see a lot of the mothers taking on most of the childcare work and shirking their paid work.
3
Making the comparison to sexual harassment is misleading for two reasons. 1) because having children is a choice, unlike being a woman. 2) employers could use their men's reproductive choices as as a cudgel just as easily. They don't usually, of course. To be realistic, parents sometimes *do* have different loyalties to their work, their community, etc than child-free people. They probably should. It's the culture of capitalism that asks people to worship the workplace and "career aspirations" that is the culprit.
7
This.
You are incorrect, for two reasons.
First, the comparison to sexual harassment because discrimination against working mothers and women based on their reproductive capacity is sex discrimination that has historically gone unaddressed, like metoo.
Second, pretending that, on a societal level, women having children is a choice is fallacious thinking.
You're also treating the choice to have kids as if a woman and her husband sit down and decide that the woman is going to gestate the kid. Women aren't "making a choice" to be debilitated by pregnancy; men are just freaking lucky that they can have children without having to go through that. If women want to have kids, they have no choice but to be pregnant. If society wants to continue, then at least some women will *have* to have children. What is society;s obligation to those women who necessarily *must* have children? Society gets the benefit, so society owes a duty to share in the burden with the woman who performs the service of child-rearing. Requiring women to bear the entire burden of childrearing that benefits men and society is theft of resources. This is abstract thinking, but I bet if you try very hard you can keep up.
A woman at my wife’s work had four babies in succession, so my wife and other employees had to pick up the slack, repeatedly. The extra work affected OUR family life. You can call it discrimination, the dislike of working with moms, particularly those with multiple very young children, but remember—the word also has a simple, non derogatory meaning as well—“to make a distinction, to differentiate.” It’s reasonable to differentiate between such moms and other employees, all other things being equal, and not necessarily a sign of prejudicial treatment—unless you think it’s unjust to differentiate. Caring for four children is a full time job. Sorry, but unless you’re rich and can farm out a lot of childcare, you simply can’t have everything— though you can pretend to—and foist the extra work on others.
165
Chris, where was the father of this woman's four children? Perhaps (and I certainly don't know for sure) your wife and her co-workers were picking up the slack for HIM, too.
17
People often blame working moms when they should be blaming management and leadership for not hiring appropriate help in her absence.
42
absolutely agree with Dan here. here's another example: if someone voluntarily joins the military or the National Reserve, and they're called away on deployment whether expected or sudden, an employer is required not to discriminate against them for a certain length of absence.
like a volunteer reservist, just deal with it as a contingency cost of living in and supporting an advanced society, and give them their old job back.
1
Two data points: I was interviewing for a job during my engagement. The professor interviewing me asked me what my plans were for having children. (This is illegal, just in case anyone's not aware of that.) During my time in that research group, one of the post-docs told me that he was surprised that I was hired, because "Professor X says all women do is get pregnant & leave." Considering that employees of the group were expected to be available to work 24/7, it's not a surprise that women who did get pregnant left. A few years after that, I became friendly w/a woman who had quit her job at a large US-based international company that had been voted one of the top workplaces for women to stay home w/her newborn. During her pregnancy she had been offered a promotion that would have involved a large percentage of travel, & she turned down the promotion to stay in her current position. Mysteriously, over the following five months, all of her projects were taken away from her one by one, she wasn't included in meetings, & higher-ups in her area ignored her. She got the point & quit.
2
I am a 55 year old single man who is currently caring around the clock for my elderly father and have been since he had a stroke 3 years ago. He really doesn't want to end his life in a nursing home, and I am doing whatever I can to make that possible. I have had to put my life on hold--that is the choice I made. I completely understand that basically all the jobs I had in the past are simply not compatible with my current responsibilities. Discrimination is wrong and pre-judging a job candidate is wrong, but at a certain point a job has requirements and it is just a job. Only the exceptions to the rule can have it all, the rest of us have to make due.
13
For ten years I worked for a company that was consistently rated as one of the most woman- and mother-friendly employers in the city. It was great public relations. What I saw happen to a mother on my project team told a completely different story. Granted, the lack of accommodation and other bad practices occurred at the manager level but were nevertheless harmful. The gap between published platitude and day-to-day practice was vast.
5
This is really a structural issue. Many of the comments are empathetic, but still indicate some resentment of having to take over when a woman is on maternity leave. Were we less profit-driven, and more family-oriented (as we claim to be), we would have policies (driven by regulations?) that would allow / require additional resources to fill in when a woman took maternity leave. Ideally, men would take a leave as well, and this would be mandatory, reinforcing the understanding that family is valued above work.
12
I do believe there is a companion bias along with sexism that plagues working mothers. American workplace culture believes that their products and services improve with the amount of time people spend at work. This bias against leaving the office leads to 60 hour work weeks.
However, consumers uses goods in services in the real world. Haven't we all been to a store and NOT found the product that would be a good fit for our needs. American workers leave vacation time on the table and are afraid of asking for maternity leave. The best products and services are provided by people with a real life. Let's consider family leave an opportunity for employees to cross pollinating with the economy. Those short bald drooling incontinent people that come with maternity leave are future customers.
4
Yes, this is the broader, more important issue here. All of us, whether or not we're parents, have interests and obligations outside the workplace. We all need time at some point to care for parents, children, friends, or other people who need us. We need to be more active in our communities and have time to volunteer, or to serve the nonprofit orgs that make our hometowns good places to live.
That all of us, parents or no, feel uncomfortable working fewer than 60-hour work weeks, worrying that if we're not present in the office 24/7 someone might start to think we're not essential to the workings of the company and our jobs might be eliminated, is a problem.
Data backs this up: people don't magically become more productive just because they work more hours.
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2014/12/09/proof-that-you-should...
I don't know how we as a society change this, but for everyone's sanity, the 40-hour work week needs to become the expectation again.
1
Granted that pregnancy and motherhood can interfere with the doctrine of ruthless efficiency expected of workers today. So can being over 50, using a wheelchair, and even having seasonal allergies for that matter. Let’s stop expecting human workers to be robots.
10
While not diminishing the need for mother's to have the proper work/life balance, why would this also not apply equally to fathers? As a father I can say that if I were to request time off for a sick child, etc. this would be very abnormal to say the least. This should not be, if there were not such a stigma about men taking time for child care and the like I believe it would be freeing to moms.
9
I live in the literal heart of Trump country. County Prosecutors and Police Chiefs look the other way to violence against girls and women, I know. Municipalities now being protected by Phil Murphy call it ¨progressive discipline¨-- a culture that wills affluent boys into oppressive men. Where ex wives of cops are gunned down on public streets, unencumbered, even embraced by fellow cops as they die. Because she spoke out. Because she told. Men are the police. The courts. Public Safety. The lawyers. They are the chief donors and decision makers of our domestic violence shelters, health and social welfare agencies. They are are CEO, the one that does not compel HR to hire more women in leadership. Conversely, women have no meaningful independent economic or political power. If they do, there´s always a Comey to take them down and remind them their place. Just who should women tell. The EEOC who do not stop a universe of Weinsteins & Anita Hills?
Women control none of the pillars that control our society. The real question is why, even when we know women are brutally victimized when they speak out do we continue burdening women with the responsibility of sacrificing yet more personal safety and stability speaking societies ills, when raped, discriminated against, when data and others forms of explicit evidence tell the story of our oppression. Paid labor, unpaid labor, its all women. Even the ones married to the power. I am your piece. It resonates so deeply with me.
8
Yes, there is discrimination against women with children; yes, sometimes others, including women without children, have to "pick up slack"; and yes, sometimes women without kids get lower raises because the boss doesn't think they need the money. However, I think that some of the problem is that in many workplaces, employees are expected to work ridiculous hours and then be available all evening/night/weekend to answer emails and participate in conference calls. Until this changes (don't hold your breath) people who are perceived as willing/able to work 24/7 will be rewarded more than those who are not.
13
I hear a lot of commenters say that they resent people with children because people without children "have to take up the slack." What if everyone got to leave at 5:30, not just the parents? You could go home to your family or go out with your friends or do what you want. No one has to stay late. That would be a fair and equitable workplace, and no parents would be punished for having a family. Yes, this is possible to achieve. Employers have to set the tone and expectations.
17
Children are the fun side of this equation, cute, cuddly, developing every day ..
Aging parents .. not so much. Add some dementia or Alzheimers or physical impairment .. much worse.
If your company is just using materity leave as an excuse to understaff .. that is a different issue.
And people who feel put upon need to differentiate between long-term being asked to do more and helping out during inevitable work crises. And if you are at all ambitious what a time to show that you can step up and get things done ..
Asking anyone to work overtime without pay or comp time should be illegal. If there was pay involved .. maybe picking up the slack would be more palatable. How about providing some part-time work this way for parents, children, sick or burned out people, semi- or fully retired .. young people looking for a first job and some training ...
And while it is nice that some families chose traditional gender roles, daddy will work 80 hours while mommy takes care of kids .. there are all kinds of families and people and children. Maybe mom has the better career .. or mom and dad both have good careers ..
Women are investing tens of thousands of dollars on education. Child care for 4 years of babyhood and toddlerhood probably does not cost as much as giving up a 30 year career after kids go to school.
Stay at home mommies are also taking a big risk that divorce will separate them from the primary breadwinner without salable skills ...
8
Why should a worker be "committed" to a job where she can be fired due to mere subjective feelings of her boss?
And, by the way, the boss used a euphemism which I find particularly obnoxious. She said she "let the employee go", as if the employee was being held against her will and had been given her freedom. In reality, of course, the employee was kicked out.
6
Unfortunately, women will never outrun their biology. Only women get pregnant and since women are the child-bearers, society strongly believes that women should do the lions-share of child rearing. I add also that many women believe that too and the readily take off work or leave early/come in late to tend to their children - and that is completely understandable. It would be nice if men (if one is involved) did their "half" but by in large they still do not. So, there you have it.
This is also one of the reasons women get paid less. And to me, thats fair. For women that are married or have partners, they need to begin pushing those partners to do their share.
4
My boss told me plainly that if I talked about my son at work, I would not be able to retain my job.
What is wrong with the society? Gender, race, maternity, age, religion, etc are all becoming hot button issues at work. I am just puzzled by the messy situations. The solution is so simple! How about we all go back to basics and agree with the single concept of merit based evaluation system. The system should be objective, blind and point based. Productivity is measured by a universal standard. Especially for private industries, profit is the bottom line. The only fair way to run an operation is to be neutral and blind to all the factors mentions above and only look at productivity. Worker A may be a new mom. Worker B may have a sick child. Worker C may have an aging parent and worker D may be preparing to run a marathon. Where will all these end and how can any operation accommodate all these requests? Clearly it is a diaster and lawsuit waiting to happen?
We are all defined and limited by our biological realities including genders, age, IQ and race. Of course we all want to make the most whenever we can. There is just no way out unless the system is neutral and objective. The biological realities will not go away. But we must be smarter than that!
1
JC--Status quo is unacceptable, on all of these "hot button issues." Swim; don't just float.
I have read articles like this time and time again. Mothers, if you want more people supporting policies like flexible hours, maternity/ sick leave, telecommuting, etc. stop focusing on yourselves and make this a more general issue about work-life balance for everyone. Some of us are not and will never be mothers but many will benefit from such policies whether for themselves or because they are a caregiver for an elderly parent, disabled sibling, sick spouse, etc.
As a woman without children, I have covered for female medical colleagues out on maternity leave. Occasionally I resent it although at least my colleagues often make it a point to thank me and others who have assisted them while they are out.
15
As a woman with children, I have covered for colleagues on leave for family illness, funerals, sabbaticals, extensive surgery/recovery/therapy for injuries incurred skiing or playing other sports, extensive medical treatment for cancer, oh and parental leave.
If your company makes ample provisions for parents or mothers, but not other life events, I suggest you come up with a proactive list of ways they could support all employees, or look for another job if you're so miserable and overworked.
87
This article is absolutely dead-on. One other point, though: The off-color remarks about my pregnant belly by an aging CEO didn't bother me too much. I mean, that was just the way he was.
But after I came back to work (and after that particular CEO retired), I experienced far more discrimination by my female supervisor and department head. It was difficult to pin down, in part because both those executives were mothers themselves. The difference was that their children were older, and even when they were younger, they had high-paid nanny care that let them put in very long hours in the office. In contrast, I had a part-time babysitter, a husband with some flexibility, but I chose to leave the office at a reasonable hour to see my kid. It's not that I wasn't putting in the long hours; it's that I was working from home after the child was in bed. I got the work done--and done well--but I didn't play office politics as well as I could have if I'd been single-mindedly devoted to my job. So when sales fell, I was vulnerable, and I was fired. There was definitely soft bigotry involved as well as unreasonable expectations about what parents are expected to bring to the workplace. I wish our society valued work-life balance. Sure, lip-service is paid to that in many workplaces, but the reality is that if you're not on call constantly, you're not valued as a worker.
9
I've read the set of comments, and the most stinging conclusion that sticks with me is that the 'American work place' is often cold and uncaring (which also happens to mirror the orientations of some of it's workers).
5
A young woman today must seriously consider not becoming a mother. One of the unintended consequences of privatizing social security will be a European or Japanese-style decline in population because it just won't make sense to risk spending old age in poverty -- you won't be able to make enough money, you won't be able to save enough money, you can be financially wiped out in any whim of "the market," and there won't be any safety nets. I think the biggest "secret" is that men think women are dumb for doing it (contributing to the discrimination problem!) -- they sure wouldn't risk everything for parenthood.
9
This bias - which is so prevalent and accepted it's practically invisible unless explicitly called out - is yet more evidence that Americans really don't like children. There's the same relationship between many Americans and children, as between the flowers at a Mafia functionary's funeral, and the capo who ordered his murder - and the flowers. A kind of mawkish, kitschy sentimentality. Masking an utter denial of reality. Other evidences? the criminally corrosive way we fund K - 12 education. It cannot fail to fail the kids under its tender care. the way any sort of social saftey net is snatched away form those most in need - many of whom are children.
The rate at which kids kill each other, and themselves, and those around them, with guns. None of these things would be tolerated n a society which truly cared for, let alone loved, its children.
Lastly and most relevantly to the article, is the way employers are permitted simply to discard pregnant employees as they would used tissue of any sort.
The value of mothers, and children, to society should be so obvious that none of the above problems could possibly occur.
Discounting the welfare of mothers and children in these ways is sad, criminally negligent, and to me, inexplicable.
3
This situation is little better, today, than it was back in the 70's, when I was pregnant, although I was required to exit the office, for the duration. Ladies, we can do anything except fertilize our own eggs. Keep marching and demonstrating, AND digging in your heels.
2
I am supportive of my African American wife and her demanding academic career. That is one of the ways she has managed to survive the hostility and bias towards mothers. My wife gave birth to twins. Without taking maternity leave at all. Our babies were born near the end of the semester. She got a sub instructor for 3 weeks, came back for final exams and then used the semester break over Christmas to be at home with our babies. Then went right back to work in January. A year later when she was up for promotion she was accused, without evidence, of regularly being late to class by her childless female Dean and by a hostile review committee and was denied promotion and placed on probation. Though she managed to ultimately keep her job after undergoing a humiliating “mentorship” for two years the stain of that bias remains and periodically shows up in her peer evaluations and affects her salary. My point: here is a woman who did everything humanly possible and was still punished for having children. It doesn’t matter. The bias is real. And illegal. How about we all
Consider this: if we stop working women from being mothers, we will all be out of a job as a society in about 20 years flat. No future. customers.
280
First of all, no one is going to stop all working women from being mothers. Why do people keep bringing up this far-fetched scenario of "what if everyone decided not to have children"?
Really, how likely do you think that is?
However, the way your wife has been treated is atrocious. Has it not occurred to you that she's been treated so unjustly due to racial bias - rather than bias against her as a mother? Frankly, what you describe has all the earmarks of racial bias.
Also, since you write "my African-American wife," I'm guessing you are not also African-American. That may be adding to the bias your wife is experiencing and the hostility of her dean.
7
I am so glad you wrote this article. I waited until 39 to have my son and was widowed the next year. I raised him alone the rest of the time. During that time, I experienced overt discrimination from a banker, who flat out told me he wouldn't have given my business a line of credit if he had known I was pregnant. I had a client cancel their contract, when God forbid, I had a child care issue and brought my angelic infant to a meeting rather than reschedule the meeting. I have also experienced hiring discrimination and I note that employers do not stipulate they don't discriminate against mothers. Fathers get extra credit for being at work on time, mothers are punished. Even women who don't have children participate in this torture-fest.
6
This issue, like many boils down to one simple answer: In the US we like money more than people. Everything we do (or don't do) suggests that. Companies care more about their bottom line than children. Other workers who have to "fill in" should never be put in that position by their employer, who should have a plan in place for maternity leave. Oh, and what if your "work" just went undone, or was done later? Who outside of your boss would even notice. At a school my children attend one of their teachers was pregnant and we knew she would miss part of the year...yet when she left the school had a string of substitutes in the class rather than a replacement teacher. Why? Her pregnancy wasn't a surprise...the school had 9 months to plan...they didn't. Businesses should be ready for this eventuality and have a plan that does not burden other workers nor alienate the mother. But they don't...because that would cost more money.
5
I am old. I remember work as an eight hour day. Very little overtime. Teachers didn't work two jobs: and the endless pressure of testing just wasn't there.
Competition has increased work pressure for all of us.
Corporations want 50 to 60 hours a week from a salaried employee!! That's nuts. Let's go back to a 40 hour week.
With a lunch hour. And no computer responsibilities unless actually during paid work hours.
See Denmark.
20
As someone who took years off to raise children and returned to the workplace as a 40 something - I still (retired now) resent all those extra duties handed to me "because you don't have kids to watch". Yes, that is a real thing. The young moms often don't even realize what they are doing, but the other employees (including men) in their departments pick up a lot of slack and don't get praised or compensated for it.
Long story short - having a young child takes up a lot of one's time - so much that being a good full-time employee is not really possible, no matter how much imagination and creativity we pour into the equation.
Just because "Disney Princesses" have it all doesn't make it any more real than that plactic castle in the theme parks.
16
I agree that this endless need to "have it all" needs to be examined. There is a march of the lemmings towards a certain teleological endpoint that many people cannot bring themselves to consciously consider and to affirmatively chose. Their lives just happen and then the negative fallout usually hurts the more responsible who are aware of their limitations and essential needs. Who said anyone is entitled to "have it all"? Life is going to end soon for all of us, so nobody really "has it all" given our finite times on earth. So accept that there are finite limitations of everything: time, money, abilities, emotions and just be happy with small things instead of feeling one is must have "is entitled to have" everything.
8
Why aren't you screaming at men who believe they can have it all? Why do you give men a free pass on expecting that they can have a career and kids? I haven't seen you question this assumption. Oh, right, because you operate under the sexist assumption that men don't and shouldn't bear equal burdens in raising THEIR kids.
To be totally honest, isn't the issue also that a first pregnant and then new mom - and no, not new dads - is going to be less productive, need more time off and have more upheaval in her schedule? Just facts here. As an employer who needs to see a return on their investment, how does a pregnant woman and then new mom compare to productivity of, say, a single or older woman? Those first few years are hideously disruptive. All to say that I think the issue here is the stupidity of a system that expects a woman to pop back to work within weeks of having a child and gives a man just a few days since, well, you didn't have to push a melon out of There or have a c-section so how messed up can a baby make your life? Finland gives women 8 weeks pre-partum and 16 weeks post partum paid leave. Dads get 8 weeks as well. Denmark gives 4 weeks pre and 14 weeks post and 2 weeks for dads. Then the parents get another 32 weeks to split up between them. My point is, the US stinks at maternity and paternity leave especially considering people don't live close to family very often and the new parents have complete responsibility for the care of the baby. And that leaves companies scrambling with how not to discriminate and how not to end up losing money on a wiped out worker. We all agree that Anti-mom bias is a bad thing but acting as if new parenthood doesn't reduce productivity is not helping to find a solution to the issue.
157
In the not too distant past, some employers had "floater workers" or hired temps to fill in for absent workers". Could this be the answer?
2
America MUST develop a child care policy NOW. it is an absurd shame that we allow this kind of treatment of women in a "civilized" country.
5
I’m going back 55 years, but this story is apt because it demonstrates how cowed we women were: I was interviewed for a teaching job in NYC, and the principal asked if I was planning on having a baby any time soon, obviously not wanting to hire a teacher who might leave in the near future. Chicken that I was, I replied that I was not, and got the job. I think we now have more sophisticated ways of asking those questions, but it’s really still the same.
4
I find it interesting that some comments slam working mothers who allegedly leave early for soccer carpools and the like. In all my years as a professional working mother I have never encountered such moms. I did, however, encounter outright violations of Title VII - as when early in my career I was asked during an interview if I planned to have children and how could I manage possibly manage that and my job.
2
."I have never encountered such moms."
Well, honey, you must have had your eyes shut. I have been in the workforce more that forty years. There is not a singly place I ever worked where this kind of nonsense did not occur.
At one place, where we had to rotate working Sundays, a Mommie had her babysitter call every Sunday she worked. She would have to rush home to take care of a domestic "emergency." Another Mommie I worked with had a son who got "sick" every alternate Thursday, around 2 pm. (Mommie belonged to a Thursday afternoon bowling league. What a coincidence!)
These women expect to dump on their fellow workers with no pay back or even a thank you. I can easily come up with dozens of examples this, and, I suspect, so can the majority of people reading this article. Most of them will never comment because Mommie is sacred, but a large part of the so-called discrimination against women with children comes from the simmering resentment the rest of us feel toward them.
And dare I mention one more thing? People without children are not orphans, but just try getting any accomo- dation for a sick parent or sibling.
Sorry, no sympathy for Mom here. Had enough of her long ago.
7
Children are viewed as consumer items that working women indulge in -- they therefore should 'pay' for the resulting divided attention. This means fewer opportunities at work and lower pay. I gained this insight when I broke a social norm and as a working mom had a third child. Several people said to me: "you already have a girl and a boy, why would you want another one?" Already have 2 cars in the driveway...
4
Children are a choice. Some people chose to become artists and some to become athletes. Some elect to have children and others not. So if there are consequences from those choices, then one must accept the consequences.
12
Carol gets the the root of the issue, and Cynthia tries to hide the ball by making a completely false comparison. I don't know what subject your PhD is in, but I guess it didn't cover much logic theory or false analogies. Choosing to become a parent is not remotely like choosing a vocation. Vocations change and jobs come and go. Becoming a parent (if you're doing it right) is an elemental and permanent reorientation of one's identity and responsibilities and raison d'etre. It's also a "choice" made by the overwhelming majority of the world's population (including your parents), so it is a fundamental part of the human experience for most people, across all cultures, religions, regions, and economic groups.
I get frustrated by people who try to equate parenthood to an extravagant "lifestyle choice" for which people should be punished. It smacks of bitterness. At the very least, in honor of your own mother, you should work to mitigate the adverse "consequences" that unnecessarily befall mothers, and not dole them out in your own workplace.
2
No, you need to look at it on a societal, not individual level. On a societal level, children are not a choice. There will be childbearing women--there is NO way around it. You can either choose whether you want to force those women, who are providing a service to society by bearing and raising children--to do that work to their personal detriment while society takes the benefits, or whether you want to recognize childrearing as the valuable service it is and act accordingly.
You also need to recognize biological reality. Women do not *choose* to be the ones that must bear children. You're holding them responsible for a situation they can't avoid. You're forcing them to accept the consequences of something they can't control while allowing men to reap the benefit of their literal labor. Do you think it's fair that the consequences of childbearing and childrearing should fall disproportionately on women, even though men benefit equally from having those kids?
There is no biological imperative to become an artist. There is no biological imperative to choose a career as a lawyer or athlete. There is a biological imperative to have children. Pretending it's a choice as simple as whether someone wants to take the afternoon off to go to the movies is absurd.
Let's start with an assumption an employer with sufficient maternity leave and family support (frequently not the case, I know. But "All other things being equal" is the best point for this thought experiment.) In that context, my experience has been the problem is frequently husbands. Over and over I see women subsuming their careers to their husbands', or husbands not pulling nearly as much weight in taking care of sick kids, etc. So the woman is asked to take up the slack, and that burden is passed on to employers, even if those employers are very family friendly.
So while there need to be institutional changes, there also need to be cultural changes. It may be blunt and ugly, but women who want to jiggle careers and family should choose their mates carefully. I am not talking Mr. Mom here, though bless those guys! I am talking co-equal partners. But I feel that a lot of women are blaming their employers when the problem is closer to home. And again, this is not meant to minimize those situations where employers are not willing to make reasonable accommodations for women with children.
29
So you're biased view that the division of labor is not equitable, and is the husbands fault? And this then leads you to conclude that women make bad choices when it comes to men.
You also conclude that women are "special" and need to be dealt with differently. That's not the kind of comment that keeps you in good stead with NYT readers.
What you completely ignored, not surprisingly, is that having children and a career never works. Oh it's rationalized as having worked, it never does.
That benefits NO ONE, expect the left looking for justification of imposing their will on the majority of Americans they hate. Passing idiotic, and unconstitutional laws that force employers to keep jobs open for people NOT WORKING, or worse forcing them to pay them for NOT working.
The traditional division of labor has been in place for thousands of years. It's worked quite well. What has not worked so well is the women are the same as men nonsense. The end goal is the destruction of the traditional family, and the creation of a government mandated group of "good little liberals" who worship government.
How many more generations will the left sacrifice to achieve it's unachievable goal of "Social Utopianism?"
The fathers in our office don't advertise when they need to leave early to pick up their kid or the reason why they took time off was because their kid was sick. They are discreet and professional. Mothers need to be more discreet about why they are absent. Also, no one likes a martyr. It was your lifestyle choice to be a mom. You don't get a golden cross for it. It rankles those of us who have eldercare issues to listen to mothers complain about childcare. The demands are the same but those with eldercare, like fathers, are discreet, professional and make it work.
25
Children are the future workers of America who will be paying the taxes for Social Security and Medicare which support the elderly. With the high costs of childcare, minimal paid leave policies, and the outrageous cost of medical care, families are stressed. To have a functioning society we need to have a successful younger generation and parents do the lions share of the work. In other democracies society welcomes children and provides more family support. We can do better.
3
@ADS - I think your suggestion is part of the problem. I am a working mother of three. Early in my career, I didn't put pictures of my kids in my office, and I didn't talk about them - ever. I would "sneak" away for school events, and lie about where I was going if someone noticed. But, I've come to realize that I was just part of the problem. Almost every man and woman needs to duck out of work to tend to a child or an elderly parent (or even themselves!) from time to time. It's part of life. Acting like it's a shameful secret just makes it harder for everyone to meet those responsibilities, particularly for those who cannot keep it a secret (someone requiring long-term care, etc.). If everyone was honest about where they were going and why, we'd all realize we're all doing it, and the stigma would disapepear. We're all working hard to meet our family responsibilities, it's absurd that people like you shame those who don't lie about it.
5
I would broaden this issue to one of workplace disinterest in anything other than a wholly committed full time employee. Most jobs could be structured for part time work and family leaves, but no company want this. Yet everyone has times when family takes precedence. Small children, a dying parent. We all face this and companies need to do much more to accommodate real people with real lives.
13
I must be the outlier here. I have been a working mom my whole life. It is not my company's job to ensure that I have a work-life balance, that I can leave at 2:30 to drive carpool or attend a class party, that I can do as I please but still earn the same salary as those totally dedicated to the work at hand. My company's job is to make money, not to fix my personal challenges. I used vacation days to take care of my children when they were sick and to attend important events and so did my husband. It was my husband and myself who had to ensure all the bases were covered and each of us, various babysitters, afterschool programs, family members did our parts. I know this is not a popular thing to say to today's mothers who seem to think they are entitled to top jobs while putting their family first. It's your job to figure out how to make it work and you must accept you can not be promoted to the positions that require the extra hours you do not have to dedicate to the job and you cannot expect your co-workers to pick up your slack.
78
Wow! As a woman business owner I appreciate your speaking up. I would have hired you in a nano-second! You are a woman who has commonsense in spades and is a credit to her gender.
I'm certain you and your husband are raising children with those same values.
Well done!
7
Why does it always have to be bias? That is the ready-made, handy-dandy explanation for everything of second-rate minds, ideologues, and the plaintiffs' bar.
Isn't it likely that the bias against moms is nothing of the sort? That what Goldstein calls bias is firmly rooted in fact? Statistically moms are less productive workers than non-moms? (Btw, by mom I am referring to a social "role," not a gender).
And why not? They have far more important things to think about. So why should it be a surprise if moms (statistically speaking, again) don't advance in the workplace as fast as non-moms? Ask them, and many will say they don't want the responsibility or hours or expected commitment that that are the (fair) price of getting ahead at work.
It is easy for journalists to get on their moral high horses. They have never met a payroll. I want to hear the opinions of people whose livelihoods depend on accurately judging the contributions that job applicants and employees can make to their businesses.
10
It doesn't always have to be bias, but, based my experience as a white male white-collar business person who is nearing retirement age, I don't think that there is any question that there is structural discrimination against pregnant women and women who have young children in the work force. They are routinely penalized for taking time away from work to take care of family responsibilities.
My daughter works long hours, but has a lot of flexibility about when she's actually is present in the office. Some days she's there 10-12 hours, other days she'll work at home and go in late, or go directly to an off-site meeting. She occasionally works from home Friday or Monday to avoid commuting hassles.
No one questions this, because she's great at her job and clearly a hard worker who delivers for the organization.
But she knows that the minute she has a child, all those late mornings and days spent working from home will become suspect. Her colleagues will assume she's at the pediatrician, or her kid is sick, or she wants to go to a school play. It won't matter that she continues to do the same great job she's doing now.
And you KNOW there's a double standard for men in all this: when a man leaves work early to watch his child in a soccer match, everyone goes "awww, what a great, involved dad he is."
No wonder many young women, including my daughter, aren't sure they want to have children at all. They are pretty clear-eyed about the downsides to their lives and careers.
23
That's not a hidden bias, it's a well worn story that's been told for decades. Here's the hidden bias against women at work: the single women who pick up the slack when you go on maternity leave. In startups, turnarounds, and small companies, losing a person to maternity leave materially impacts the work life balance of the rest of the staff. And it gets slightly better when mom returns to work. But mom now leaves at 4pm, and hands off her work to the other single women in the office, because "what's a mother to do". Give it to the single women in the office who don't have to leave at 4pm. No one talks about that. They are not handing off work to men. Men who leave early to take care of kids get a sigh from the work group, "he's such a good dad". I'm fine with men and women making the choice to have children. But stop asking the single women in your office to be responsible for your choices. Please write about this truly hidden bias.
38
Small company or not, it's the organization's responsibility to support all their staff. Otherwise it's not going to be successful.
Your comment seems a little divisive to me - turning employees on each other. The thing is, situations are in flux all the time and people need flexibility at different times (and for differing reasons). A company that is invested in it's employees recognizes this and puts in structures to support it.
1
You realize it's not the pregnant women asking their coworkers to be responsible for "their choices" (what with how every couple sits down and decides that the woman is gonna gestate THIS pregnancy...). It's your terrible company that is forcing coworkers to do uncompensated work. Direct your anger where it belongs. (Hint, not at the woman, even though that seems to be everyone's default.) It's not bias (maybe a bit), it's mostly just terrible management. Your stupid company can hire a temp, or pay you overtime, or a bonus, or devise a fair way to allocate work so it doesn't get dumped on one person.
Besides, what do you think would happen if, instead of allowing maternity leave, the company just straight up fired the pregnant woman. Do you think that would make your pitiable situation better, or worse? No one will be there to do the work at all unless they hire someone to replace the woman, but that will require searching, ramp up time, training...all the while you'll still be doing the extra work. It's cheaper and less disruptive to let a woman take maternity leave than it is to fire her and start from scratch.
3
As I read these comments I realize how lucky I was. Today is our beloved nanny's birthday. She and my very involved husband made it possible for me to succeed in a career that was client-focused. Clients didn't care if it was Christmas or anything else if they needed something. They'd go elsewhere.
I did experience bias when my pregnancy became obvious, but I didn't talk about it. And I did have to work doubly hard after maternity leave to prove my value again. Most importantly I kept boundaries. If there was a soccer game to attend or a school meeting, I just managed around it so no one had to take up the slack and clients never even knew. I thrived and made more money and got promoted after having a child.
Again. I was lucky.
8
I don't think it was luck at all.
You have an excellent attitude toward life, didn't make your issues someone else's and did your full best to shoulder your work seamlessly. I'm certain there were days when you were tired beyond belief.
When did we start expecting those who pay our salary to rearrange their business to accommodate us?
3
You were not lucky, you were a grownup who solved your own problems without expecting your company to find a way to make your life as a mom work out. Congratulations!
3
Not to co-opt this piece for broader causes, but having a family in general is potential cause for discrimination. Anything that could distract or require time and focus diverted from work can be seen as cause to not promote someone, gender regardless.
4
My experience has been that there was always a positive bias toward married men. However, single women not only ranked above mom's, but also under 40 married women, and in many cases, single men.
In many fields all this seems to be changing towards less bias against moms, particularly where work can efficiently be done at home, at least part of the time. As higher positions open up for Moms, I also see Dads stepping up to the parenting role more frequently.
I do agree we all still have a long way to go to reach even a semblance of equality of opportunity, as is even more true with race.
I am also old enough (really old!) to remember when not being a Protestant caused negative opportunity bias in most major Corporations. We've moved on from that, so maybe we can here also.
Sometimes the worst are other women. The most extreme bias I've seen in this regard in 20+ years in my profession has come from childless women in positions of authority. Notably, not one person has been promoted to a supervisory position as a mother. Some have had children after promotion, but none were promoted while mothers. Parental status does not correlate that way with men in my workplace.
13
It seems lately that everyone thinks they can do anything they want to without regard for any of the consequences of their actions. Life is a series of choices and their consequences, whether we understand that or not.
21
I remember some 25 years ago when I was asked point blank during my interview if I had children. I said, yes, and pointed out that the interviewer's wife was my son's Montessori teacher. This guy also once told me that a co-worker would rather be home with her children. That same employee is with the organization today, 25 years later.
2
I am a mother of 3 young children. Prior to having children, I worked full time in the health care field. My coworkers with children left the office at 5:15, while I stayed until 6:30 or 7. I was expected to pick up the slack because I could stay later. I was not compensated for this extra work. Yes, I was resentful.
After having my first child, I tried to go back to work part time, but couldn't juggle the responsibilities of work and parenting. I gave up my career to stay home with my kids full time because I felt it was best for my family.
It is a financial strain on our family. We don't go on vacations. We drive old cars. We no longer have a disposable income. But, I'm not relying on my coworkers to pick up my slack when I can't get the job done because of my family. That's not fair.
I'm also not asking anyone else to help me pay for my families needs because we only have one income.
24
It's a shame the man who got you pregnant didn't carry his share of the burden to raise his children.
The fact that you were not compensated for the "extra" work you performed before you had kids is not the fault of your colleagues with families; it is your company's fault.
Your decision to have children should not be looked at as a burden on other people. You should not have had to choose between children and a career. We all deserve to live in a society where we support each other-- and that includes support we all need to care for our families- whether that's maternity leave, decent child care, paternal leave, leave to care for aging parents or relatives....
21
@ C's Daughter - wow, you know a lot about Andy's situation.
Perhaps she and her husband had long discussions about how to manage their lives and jointly decided what was best. May be he really wanted to be a stay at home dad, but he earned three times what she did, or she insisted it should be her because she was the mom.
I don't know - and neither do you - but your prejudices are showing.
1
I'm used to being judged for my decision, particularly by other women. Not only did I give up my income, I also gave up my credibility in the eyes of many who view caring for children as less worthy than having a career.
This is a problem that occurs in an oligarchy. Workers are seen as liabilities, so accommodation is another expense. C-suite level management (be it corporate or policy makers) are in a league of their own so they have no incentive to make adjustments that work for the many. Ah the second coming of the guilded age! Comparing us to social democracies like Finland or France is a pipedream.
12
So, we working Moms are expected to work FT, parent FT, and also speak up for ourselves on these issues? We’re not “just plain tired”. More accurate to say “we’re exhausted and there aren’t enough hours in a day”. It’s time for others to take up the slack. After all, when women suffer, so do we all!
7
Those with families have a bias because they are usually the people who have to run right out the door at 4pm while those without children are expected to stay behind. Moms and dads who have zero balance in their life - do sacrifice work performance. That is the sacrifice one makes when deciding to have a family. Responsibility is an absolute. A family is a responsibility that should never interfere at the expense of others - especially in the work place. An easy solution is - a reasonable amount of time for these people to start up their family paid or unpaid right now I am certain that NorthKorea has better family leave time, but sheesh, give more time for both moms and dads .
3
I work in a unionized job with supposedly fixed work hours. I pull my weight. I took a civil service job at far lower salary than my credentials could command in the private sector in part so that it wouldn't be an expectation that I work overtime regularly. Yet, I have seen the same sort of bias.
4
Long long ago I faced discrimination as a mother when competing in graduate school for grants. Mothers returning to college were not the usual deal in those days. I was offered a job to help with the grad school stipend, but lucky for me a senior research psychologist, a woman, in another department was able to offer a grant that allowed me to deal with all the demands of grad school and the demands of two small children at home. Two years into this program one of the professors came to me and apologized. I will always be grateful when he admitted that he and others on the faculty (all male) had seen me as a "touchy-feely" mom, not worthy of support in comparison to other students, but that my subsequent work had proved them wrong. So I was grateful for some clarity of what went down then. But I also understood that there is something about being a mother that clouds other people's judgment. I have come to understand that any random mother is likely to be burdened with other people's projections of how they feel about their own mother in particular not to mention mothers in general. Often our view of "the mother" is clouded by both our expectations that she work silently and without complaint in the background, supporting US in our lives, and clouded as well by our disappointments that "the mother" does not always deliver that support. Plus "the mother" is seen, projectively, as a person without special individuality or subjectivity -- just a colorless workhorse.
103
Reply to Molly, I really like part of this comment — that we all judge mothers based on our own feelings about our mothers. However when you say we expect mothers to be “colourless workhorses” I think this is not true. Many people laugh and delight in their mother’s kindness, idiosyncratic nature, humour, interest in the arts and on and on. So many people love their mother’s individuality. Where it gets tricky is that people don’t forgive their mother not being there, or, even worse, being cruel to them. No mother is perfect but some mothers are bad.
6
I find this comment to be spot on and very insightful.
6
Scandinavians probably do better at accommodating workers who have children than we do in the US. For one thing, day care is available and less expensive than it is here. As a nation, they have put the money where their mouths are.
On the other hand, assumptions about women who have children at home do not arise from antipathy to mothers or children but from workplace experience.
Mothers are expected to put their children ahead of the job and they do.
Some organizations anticipate this: Pediatric residents have on call schedules designed to accommodate residents with young children in case one of their kids gets sick, there is a back up for the on call resident.
Not every job can do that.
We are long past the time when a woman's place was said to be in the home.
We expect women to work, but if you are raising kids you can't expect to rise through the ranks as fast as someone who doesn't have that other job.
8
Wow, pediatric residents have on call flexibility for personal child care? Where is this? Why don't all residents have it? There aren't enough people in the pool to cover this, especially in a surgical field where after hours operating is not unusual.
BTW in my day there was always a backup resident available but not in house, so they had to travel in if needed.
2
True well-being demands work-life balance whether or not you are a parent. The most important effect being a parent has had on my professional life is forcing me to find a healthy work-life balance. If I had never had children, I would have become a workaholic and most likely bitter and burned-out. The problem in our system is not that parents and the child-less have competing interests, but that they have accepted the view that they do, which is to say they judge themselves and each other vis-à-vis an unhealthy workaholic culture. Sure, my childless (or empty-nester) colleagues publish more and get more promotions, but many of them also seem more miserable and less healthy than I am. At the end of the day, the people who find a healthy balance between professional/material and other pursuits, whether or not that includes having children, will be happiest.
We all need to see this conflict in its wider frame. Our capitalist culture imposes a work-first ethic, one that is impossible for parents to personify and which makes everyone else bitter. Rather than see the true enemy here we fight each other--but on both sides we are victims. The enemy is not the parent whose work you had to do or the childless colleague who got your promotion, but the culture itself.
25
Who should be taking up the slack for workers and bosses who hold full-time positions but are essentially part-time workers because they are caring for children? I am a single woman with grown children -- I have had to take up a lot of slack. And if I take off a day to travel to see my elderly mother who is in a nursing home, I have to take a vacation day. I work in a small service-providing firm where a few people (including the boss) have young children and a few do not. Those who do not have young children are treated that they have no lives worth living outside of work. And all have to bow down to the needs of these children that not all chose to have. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the solution right now is to add a lot of burdens to childfree staff in addition to their regular jobs.
30
Laughable. My sister-in-law is a senior vp at a major company, mother to 4, and her husband is the main caregiver, though most of the children are grown.
1
I've worked with 2 children for the last decade. I've never had to have another employee take up my slack to care for my children. I don't work part-time. I am usually the last person to leave my office. My husband shifts his hours so he's available for pickups and I handle mornings. We share drs appointments for the children and if one of us gets sick we take half days or share caregiver time, which for me is vacation time used. I'm really tired of seeing all these posts with people whining about how they have to "cover" other people's decisions. Frankly, all the working parents I've ever met work within the career parameters of their workplace. I actually have seen several single, childless workers who fail to show up on time or call in when they need days off or who travel to a childhood friend who's in the hospital for a week (not part of FLMA), unannounced. I don't judge their decisions though. I just manage my own responsibilities and relationships.
3
Once again, this article demonstrates how women are our own worst enemies. There are certain professions - e.g. medicine, law, accounting, marketing firms - that require complete focus on the work at hand, demands of the firm and clients, i.e., if one wants advancement, raises and industry recognition. It's a choice a lot of women make. My husband and I made the hard decision to not have children. In every company where I was a manager, I experienced women who fully expected that someone else, usually me, would cover for them during engagement parties, wedding planning, pregnancy, kids' doctors' appointments, snow days, after 4PM when the phones started ringing with some non-work issue, during the holidays, ad nauseam. Clients, customers and patients of professional service providers don't care that it's 4PM and the day is supposedly "winding down" or that it's New Year's Eve and you might be short-staffed to handle a product recall or that a major highway accident just flooded the emergency room with catastrophes. They want what they want. Women need to exercise a very precise calculus and stop acting so entitled that everyone else should pick up your slack because you really think you should have it all. That the writer of the column is focusing her book on millennials says it all.
24
The solution isn't to be resentful of those that have a family. The solution lies within business itself to come up more equitable solutions, something they are loathe to do.
Right off the top of my head, if the business needs someone to fill in for odd work hours, create a rotating schedule of employees that are "on call" should the need arise. Everyone participates, including men and women with families. Also, businesses are cheap with compensation. They may also solve part of the problem by paying overtime etc...
Solutions abound!
12
What do engagement parties, wedding planning, New Year's Eve, etc. have to do with being a parent (non-parents have these things on their plates)? Why would you need to cover for someone during pregnancy, unless the job was a physically hazardous one? (Most women work up until around their due dates and are back in a couple of months. I've had colleagues without kids be out longer for surgery or helping an elderly parent move.) You sound like you want to be aggrieved.
7
Right on. It's high time we require that half of all children, and the responsibilities affiliated with them (from conception and gestation to adulthood, let's say) be borne by men.
3
We need to expect more than just maternity/paternity leave. We need Family Leave - by law, for everyone. Not everyone may become parents, but everyone does have family, whether elderly parents, siblings, spouses, nieces or nephews who are like their own children. At some point in our lives, we're all going to be called on to take care of our family in some way, and our government and workplace should support that without us having to take a huge financial or professional hit. I enjoy my job, but at the end of the day, I work to take care of my family. They're who I love.
12
The examples in this story are a sloppy mix of those that are discrimination, and those that are not. The lead example, for instance is not. The woman in question had let her performance slide to unacceptable levels, and was fired. That this coincided with her pregnancy does not make it discrimination. The later examples where employers assumed that performance would slip, or refused opportunities because of the potential that performance would slip, are discrimination. This is an extremely important distinction which the author fails to make. Pregnant women and mothers deserve to be treated fairly at work, which means expectations should be equal to non-mothers, and reasonable accommodations (but not lower standards) should be made to resolve conflicts in scheduling, for instance, for sick kids or pre-natal doctor visits.
If a previously capable professional who worked 60 hours a week and was focused like a laser on her work becomes somebody who works 40 hours a week and spends much of that time sharing baby pictures, the employer has every right to treat her or him differently, including termination, whether that professional is a man or a woman. Parenthood profoundly changes parents. To the extent that this changes their work performance, they should expect to be treated differently. That is not discrimination. Acting on the presumption of poor performance without observing it is discrimination. There's a big difference.
14
Changing a meeting to take care of a sick child is "letting your performance slip." You are clearly part of the problem.
Here are some #MomsToo tidbits to add: pregnant moms saving every bit of sick and vacation time that they can, even coming in to work ill, so that they can have a few weeks of income when they take their otherwise unpaid maternity leave; having to choose between paying half or more of their salary to have someone else watch their child while they keep their full time jobs or leaving the full time work force and penalizing their own careers and earnings in the long run; getting snarky remarks from coworkers who say that 'it must be nice' when they take days off to care for their children on days that schools are closed or sitters are unavailable; and being blamed by people who say that if they don't like things the way they are, they shouldn't have children. I don't hear these things happening to dads.
28
My experience has been somewhat different. Hire intelligent, motivated women no matter the job, pay them well, give them flexibility to get the job done, help further their educational and career ambitions, and understand that occasionally life outside of work happens. Very rarely has there been a problem.
51
It’s interesting that this column appears at the same time as coverage about the continuing reduction of the US birth rate. This country makes motherhood even more difficult than it needs to be; no wonder more women are choosing not to have children. I raised two children while working full time in a demanding profession that many of my colleagues consider to be a 24/7 job. For the first 7 years of my two-child life (before I packed up my children and my dog and left my husband), I was married to a man in the same profession who refused to adjust his life or his schedule to accommodate his parenting reponsibilities (even though he had no qualms about leaving the office during the day for “legitimate” reasons such as haircuts, car repairs, gym workouts, and visits to his tailor). Until men start to demand - and receive - accommodations for their parenting status, no one will take the problem seriously. It’s just a “women’s issue” - until the low birth rate creates a demographic imbalance that impairs the entire economy.
32
Whoa! Do not single people pay into social security also for other people's children and at a much higher rate on their federal income taxes which goes to help everybody. And if they are living in a high tax area, do they not contribute to help educate other people's children even though they don't have any? They can't even get a break traveling solo, because in some cases they are required to pay a single supplement fee between $500-$1000 more because they are traveling alone. In some corporations, single people who are childless and have worked hard are passed over for promotions in favor of the family person or single parent because as I was told they need the money more. To labeled single people as selfish and not giving back to help others is a false narrative promulgated by married people and single parents that needs to stop. Single people are more than paying their fair share and helping out where needed. Just because you are single doesn't mean that you don't have family obligations too.
32
What you are talking about, dupr, is the cost of living in a civil society. I knew that there were a lot of men who dodged the draft when I was serving, but I did it anyway because that's what some of us did in recognition of the need to serve. There is no sniveling in a civil society, only getting on with making it better for all.
8
Or you can look at it this way: when you're 80, do you really want there to be no one younger than you around to keep society running, care for you in your nursing home, be your doctor, grow the food you eat, and - most importantly - be working and paying into Social Security so that you can collect your check? Because if everyone decided to be childless like you, that's what would happen, and fast. Yeah, you can thank use later. But sorry about your $500 supplement.
Fact: every mother in the workplace who complains about unfair treatment....
was once a single person too. As a single person, I was not treated with the disrespect I received when I had kids.
87
I'm a very small business owner, and I am a woman. I have an employee--my only employee right now--who is a young mother. She is an excellent worker and has made huge contributions to the business. However, it is challenging when she has to take time off to take care of her sick child. She called off this morning because her 2-year-old son has a fever and is vomiting. Although her income is significantly higher than her husband's, the burden for taking care of her child when he's sick almost always falls on her shoulders. I try very hard to be accommodating, but it can hurt the business. I provide a flexible work schedule and she has a laptop so she can (theoretically) work from home, assuming she has the laptop with her. But I pay for her absences by working extra hours to meet deadlines, and I pay literally by giving her paid time off and paying her a salary. I wish it was easier for both of us.
25
Would you feel the same way about paying a father for his “time off”? A single woman with no kids who needed to care for a sick, elderly parent?
It’s getting tiresome to hear from business owners how paying people a salary is such a burden. This is how capitalism works, folks.
1
Thanks for your thoughtful question, #shepersists. I honestly don't know how I would feel about paying a father for his "time off", or a single woman with no kids who needed to care for a sick, elderly parent, because I haven't been in that situation, but I think any leave--from anyone who was ill, or had to care for someone else who was ill--would be a struggle for my small business to handle. My clients haven't lined up to pay extra fees to cover these absences, so they come from my pocket, both literally and in the sense that my clients get frustrated with schedule delays and I lose the opportunity to take on more work because we're finishing other projects that have gone on longer than they should. I am a leftie, and I get that this isn't what people with my political beliefs want to hear, but it's challenging to run a business when *anyone* is absent a lot.
I still remember when I was working for the government in Washington DC in the mid-60's, and one could set ones watch by when the phones started ringing on the desks around me. Children had gotten home from school and were checking in with their mother. Not checking in once, but innumerable times over the next 2 hours until the end of the work day.
There was no childcare at home (these were school-age children), and their mother spent the rest of the work day refereeing what was going on at home (Timmy ate all the cookies!) and what they could and could not do.
Did I resent it? Yes, I did. I was doing my job and these women were not doing theirs - in fact, they were failing at both the at-home and at-work jobs as they simply could not juggle both.
Oh, I know what is coming next - we need low-cost or free child care for working mothers, paid for with our tax dollars. Well, we can't afford that. What we do need is women in the work force who have figured out their priorities and have made the proper arrangements in order to fulfill them.
62
The US pays for what it's citizens (or their representatives) deem a civic good. If you want to no be inconvenienced by other's phone calls at work, maybe you should support cadre, free all day childcare, like in France. Many women quit working when they have families because the cost of childcare is so high. Try $700 per child per month in low cost of living areas. Women bear this to work through the preschool years so they don't have to start over at no-experience wages after taking off during the preschool years. And if no one decides to have children, who will pay for your Social Security when you retire? We spend the SS tax on the current generation of retirees. It isn't saved for you, the next generation pays for you. Something to think about.
18
"Well, we can't afford that." And yet most of Europe, especially Scandinavia, does. Hmmmmm.
154
"What we do need is women in the work force who have figured out their priorities and have made the proper arrangements in order to fulfill them."
Why did you not also direct this screed at the fathers of these children? Am very interested in hearing your explanation. I think it'll show you a lot about yourself.
169
Early in my career I was advised by a mentor to say "my car broke down" if I was late to work after having my kids (I have 3, all adults now). The VP of HR once said to me as we left the office together that she didn't even know that I had kids. That was the corporate culture I was in at the time - your kids were a liability if you were a women and a "stabilizing influence" if you were a man. I had in home support, and a supportive spouse which allowed me to have a great career as well, but I never went to those "Family picnics" or "outings with kids" until my career was well advanced - I had hoped my daughter and daughters in law would see a different world bu I am not sure it's happening fast enough if at all.
22
I haven't found "anti-mom" bias at my jobs. The mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be are given generous time off at my jobs, and beforehand my employer throws many celebrations for the gender reveal and the going-on-baby-leave. I find their concerns for time off, money, workload are taken very seriously at my jobs. On the other hand, less normative families--adoption, fostering--are ignored. And pets are ignored. I am publishing a book, which relates to my job, but no one threw me a party. I am seeing the lifestyle of the biological nuclear family with biological mothers and fathers regularly centered and celebrated at my jobs. Alternative lifestyles, however, are regularly ignored at my jobs.
19
This didn't seem to be a problem at my last job. That's because it was a family-owned business and the CEO's wife was in charge of HR.
27
The problem goes both ways. The other employees are going to have to make up for all the absences and the leaving earlies and the various problems having a young family will entail.
29
In my experience, those without children go through periods of "absences and leaving earlies" also. They do it for personal health crises, care of elderly parents, relationship dramas, home renovations, etc. At least one can advance-plan for maternity leave.
Perhaps what we need, desperately, in this country - is an overhaul of our attitude toward children - even more than toward mothers in the workplace. The bitterness and disdain expressed by some regarding the need of mothers to accommodate the care of their children strangles the future of our country, which may sound overly dramatic, but it isn't. If you compare the test scores and mental health issues associated with kids in this country to the same set of statistics in other parts of the world, it becomes pretty obvious that in the long run we, as a nation, will be increasingly in trouble. People need to learn to think in long-term trajectories.
13
I don't see bitterness here. I see employees being unfairly burdened by the lack of cogent government policies, employer oversight and collegial consideration. This is an argument that needs institutional and legal solutions, not case by case anecdotes, and certainly not the canard of future population numbers and social security pay outs.
10
An anecdote relevant to this column:
One of my colleagues went into labor when she was in a meeting with a senior executive. She took only 2 weeks off, ie just like a vacation, then returned to work.
A few years later, I was in a conversation with her and another co-worker. When she did not remember a meeting he referred back to, he said, oh, that's right, you missed it when you were out on maternity leave.
13
We, as women, may have differences of opinions about the contributions of women who've yet to have children or never may have children and our sisters who are pregnant or are moms.
It goes without argument that mothers and mothers to be have significant responsibilities outside of work.
I've experienced women colleagues who've taken the challenge of family and work life and have become paragons of productivity. Nothing, I mean absolutely nothing throws them. And these are women without domestic help (paid or familial). Perhaps their husbands are paragons in the dad department? I don't know.
I've also experienced women colleagues who have struggled to achieve balance. Some have all the support money can buy (nannies) and still visibly struggle with the focus needed on the business tasks at hand.
I can only imagine how more difficult it is as a mother working in blue collar or pink collar professions.
Parenthood falls into the categories of reason for existence, a well-thought-out choice, or an accident. My anecdotal experience is that mothers-of-choice and those overcoming a reproductive accident are far better colleagues than the women for whom motherhood is their entire reason for existence.
9
I've routinely run into this bias, despite routinely being far more productive than many of my childless coworkers. The people who take routine "mental health days" sneer when i take one day for a sick kid. They call my maternity leave a vacation, then expect pity when they go on medical leave because they ruined their own body.
Of course, it will catch up to them in the end. They may not have kids, but they will likely end up with aging parents. Then they'll learn what fun it is to have a workplace that despises people with family obligations.
I have found that the greatest support for working moms comes from Boomer women whose kids have grown and who are now taking care of their parents. They know the struggle.
12
I am offended that you use the word, "childless," like having a child is the normative and the "right" lifestyle. I think this suggests an expectation that the ones who "lack" a child are missing something in their lives, but many men and women who are not parents are very fulfilled and happy and productive.
27
Agreed. Throughout my career in K-12 education, my choice to not have children has often been regarded negatively, as if I am less effective/not as empathetic as a teacher because I am not also a mother. I have endured co-workers and parents' inappropriate and frankly rude questions ("why don't you have chldren?" "you must not really like kids if you don't have kids of your own.") while also being expected to take on extra work for co-workers with children. The pejorative language leveled at the "childless" has long made me wonder which way the bias on this issue truly flows.
2
I started my business (reluctantly) when I decided that my workplace couldn't accommodate my schedule as a new mother. The business, a type of consulting, was organized on the premise that flexible scheduling was essential. My first three employees were also working mothers. They were the best, most productive employees one could hope for. 36 years later, the business is still thriving, provides an income above the level of most in our profession and no one punches a clock.
20
In reading these comments, it's sad to see that many people in the workplace feel put upan by a co-worker's pregnancy. It reflects the the lack of support from the business, that leaves it up to the workers to cope, and creates antipathy towards these women. Rather than questioning the practices of the empoyers, we are questioning a women's choice to reproduce. It's a sorry state for workers, mothers or not.
33
My wife and I made an active decision to have children and it definitely impacted by my career. By the same token, the person who decides to not have children and focus on their career should not be penalized just to help me. The workplace needs to be fair to everyone, and not just make allowances to help parents like me.
28
It is not "mean-spirited" to point out the burden that a maternity leave puts on the rest of the people in a work unit. I was routinely expected to work 60-70 hour weeks (with no overtime compensation) to make up for maternity leaves and child-related absences. How was that equitable to me? In the absence of realistic social/economic policies to support parents, non-parents are forced to pick up the slack. That is fact in the US. I will not apologize for pointing out facts.
121
I agree. While two women are currently on maternity leave, we have other teachers and administrators covering their jobs. That means more work for those teachers and administrators. I did not get time off when I adopted a pet nor did I get time off to work on my book, so I am not going to be compensated unless I have a biological child as well.
16
You work in education? Then why on earth is your organization not using long-term substitutes? It's not rocket science.
11
So your company is incapable of calling a temp staffing agency because an employee was pregnant? Really? Sounds like you're angry at the wrong person. Your HR is the one slacking on their job, not your pregnant coworker.
My company regularly hires "long term" temps for FMLA situations - including FMLA leave for childfree workers who are caring for sick parents - which, as a bonus, means we've met many talented people who get employed full-time down the road when a permanent position becomes available because we've had the chance to see their work in action.
Very few people reading this column are working in industries that are so specialized and secretive that a temporary labor solution could not be used.
17
Reading through the comments here, why are employees who question fair work distribution being called "mean-spirited"? Lack of congent government policies, employer oversight, and collegial consideration should not be blamed on coworkers who are wary of being asked to do more beyond agreed upon contractual obligations. Making assumptions and increasing expectations , often without compensation, on those without children is just as egregious an employment practice.
23
Obviously. However individuals have to see that this (long term benefits involved in the care of kids) is important before they support government policies, and it just isn't happening. When I had my first child, I worked in New York for a television network in a job that involved traveling nearly 300 days a year. I traveled with my daughter and a nanny, at my own expense, but was forced out essentially because no one had ever done that before. We need to start thinking of ways to accommodate children - and this means employers need to get creative and find ways to make this work. It might mean turning an empty office to a day care center, complete with regulations involving insurance for said situation. In other words, we have to stop thinking why we cannot support the needs of mothers and children and start coming up with ways to accommodate this issue. But unless people see that there are long-term benefits for all of us if we do this, it isn't going to happen.
3
As a single woman without children and having worked in a variety of fields, I can remember often being asked to work late or cover because someone's child was ill and they couldn't make it to work that day, or there was a PTA meeting, bringing kids to work (yeah, they were cute, but we're not babysitters) or well "it's a holiday and I need to shop for gifts for my kids . . . " It became an abuse of goodwill.
This conversation has to go beyond the needs of mothers/parents. It also has to include a discussion about how the work environment can be fair to all regardless or parent status.
110
In 'The Nordic Theory of Everything' by Anu Partanen, a Finnish woman who worked here in the U.S., she elaborates on how backwards - and self-defeating - U.S. cultural attitudes are towards working women (and towards many other things).
8
Many comments here show the same mean-spirited bias toward mothers described in the article. I supervise staff with young children and staff without. I give both the flexibility they need to meet their current stage of life, whether time away to help aging parents, or deal with an ill partner, or pursue more education, or, yes, manage the needs of young children. Staff without children ask for more opportunities to travel for work, and we parents cover for them. Staff with children know those opportunities are available to them if/when they wish. Staff without children have taken part in classes and professional development programs in our institution that mean they are absent from our office sometimes, while others, including mothers of young children, cover for them. Staff with young children, again, are reminded that those options are open to them too, if/when they want them. Staff in any situation who work extra hours and days are offered comp time. This is not rocket science, it is Management 101.
Co-workers who are being poorly managed and feel burdened by managers shifting work from mothers to them should 1) have a little empathy for a woman who is working two jobs out of necessity and who is likely being mismanaged too; 2) remember that there will be or have been times when co-workers had to cover for them; and 3) talk with their managers about their own needs and how to meet them, instead of bearing grudges against a co-worker. Stages of life and work pass. Be kind.
64
"Staff without children ask for more opportunities to travel for work, and we parents cover for them."
This is great. That's all the childfree workers are asking for, is some reciprocation. More often than not, it tends to be scarce.
12
I wonder if a family living like my parents did small home, one used car would need two incomes. I was able to raise a family on one income, at about the national average salary. Now the houses are bigger, the cars are newer, etc. etc.. All the increased luxuries are worth the human price.
7
In many places and in many jobs yes, they absolutely would need two incomes. Pay has not kept up with housing costs. If you are just seeing big houses and new cars, you are living in a bubble. It's also not all about housing; folks have to consider medical insurance and longer-term career goals. I'm guessing you haven't had to re-enter the workforce after a few years 'off' to raise children.
5
RG, I wonder about that, too. Daycare often costs as much as a woman’s entire salary, and in more expensive cities like NY (where people claim to need two working parents for the rents) daycare is astronomical. After kids start school they still need after school care and care for the summers — so salary goes to babysitters and camps. Then it’s tutors and more camps and cleaning ladies. It’s basically 20 years of paying for childcare, with 10 years before that of low level pay and dues paying. Even after the kids are gone mothers have a pay penalty. Is it worth it? Are moms really enjoying the work that much — because it seems that’s all they’re working for.
I’ve seen middle class families live in apartments to allow mom to stay home. People can make different decisions. My husband and I lived in a terrible 900 square foot house (with a leaking basement, etc), vacationed only with my parents and gave up a second car. It can be done if it’s important to you.
5
Lots of comments on the reduced "productivity" of pregnant women and mothers. Maybe that says more about how grueling our work culture (60 hours weeks?) is than it does about pregnancy and motherhood. Maybe if our work culture is so demanding that the most natural human biological activity can't be accommodated, the problem is the work, not the woman.
363
Hurrah -- someone finally got to the nub of the cultural assumptions underlying this problem!
11
As they say, Americans live to work and Europeans work to live. We don't make accommodations for women to have children but we also don't afford time for people to take real vacations, have real hobbies, sit down for dinner each night as a family, deal with an illness, or sleep a full 8 hours each night. All in the name of the puritan work ethic and American capitalism.
17
All of my employees who got pregnant showed marked reductions in productivity. From "mommy brain" to endless doc appointments to water cooler "mommy talks" to just not really being there. Every. Single. Time.
8
The U.S. is not (for example) Japan, desperately in need of more children. We have no social policy (that I'm aware of) saying "go forth and procreate." It's one of the benefits of our approach to immigration which helps keep our labor pool in good shape. I bring this up because having children remains a personal and private choice, not a state policy or requirement. I chose a child-free life for myself. I don't mind supporting things like education (I spent my life as an educator). I get why others often choose to have children, but I'd like not to be drafted at work into support for other peoples' parenting choices.
26
In my long career in the male dominated fields of law and finance, there has been a strong, positive correlation between people who take the position by Surly Bird (apt pseudonym) and people who oppose reproductive rights for women - the old double whammy.
Japan needs more children? That's news to me. Several decades ago I read that the Jaapanese government was worried about overpopulation and even legalized abortion as an explicit form of population control. Apparently their efforts worked too well.
Wow. "Strong, positive correlation." Sorry to disappoint but you know what they say about correlations. I'm a strong supporter of reproductive rights. AND, the right NOT to reproduce.
Social policy comes with tradeoffs. Moms to be need to be protected. However it means that everyone else will work harder. We have that situation at my work presently where the productivity of a pregnant mom is way down, which means, others have to work much harder. Also she will go out for several months, and then be less productive upon return. This may all be well and good social policy but non-family co-workers suffer for years until Moms get up to speed again. Denying this is silly (sure, sure there are super mom employees who don't slack, perhaps, but that isn't the norm). So we need the laws because there is a built in disincentive to hire someone who someone suspects might get pregnant shortly.
9
I think of my small office as a microcosm of the working world. We have younger and older, male and female, parents and non-parents, etc. Everyone works hard most of the time, and everyone has less productive periods. The non-parents have actually been frequently saddled with significant health problems. On the whole, from a purely empirical perspective, I would be hard pressed to say that parents are less productive in my workplace. However, we have flex time options which make it more possible for parents to put in their time (productively) around the demands of parenting. I think that may make a difference.
20
As a childless woman I have met with a different kind of bias. My profession is one with roughly equal numbers of men and women. My childless colleagues and I are always the ones whose schedules must be arranged to accommodate women whose schedules must be built around childcare. I absolutely agree with the needs of motherhood and do not question their schedule issues. However, I'd like to see two things: I want to see open recognition of the sacrifices imposed on the childless. Even more important is my wish that fathers and their employers would step up and recognize that fathers should bear the responsibility and be given the opportunity to adjust their schedules for childcare during work hours. In the beginning, of course, it's important for most women to bear more responsibility, simply because of nursing, though both parents should participate equally in parenting and loving their children from day one. A change like this would recognize the fact that parenting is not up to the mother, and that all of us should recognize and willingly contribute to the upbringing of the precious gift of children.
41
Not all business can adapt to flex time. So we have a wish for it all to be ok but again there are trade offs.
1
I work for a company with 95% male employees and we highly value the few women that we have. One of our favorites left a few months ago & she is greatly missed.
3
your response is humorous and a consequence of the ratio of men to women.
The weird thing about the US is how you actually can't admit that your child, your baby, your family is equally as important as your job. Why can't a job be more flexible or understanding when your productivity wanes slightly during the time in your life you have very young children? Is money and numbers and productivity the be all, end all in our society? Can't someone not fear being let go because their productivity wanes slightly during a time that they have this very important other focus in their lives? It's almost always mothers who struggle with this issue. Men just assume their wives will pick up the slack so they can be high functioners at work, but why can't we as a society understand that families need time and focus too and we shouldn't have to hide the desire to put in this time and focus especially when our children are 5 and below. This understanding would make for a society with better citizens and stronger family units.
22
...and why can't we admit that most men want to spend time with their kids, and that kids benefit from this? I don't care if you have a full-time, stay-at-home spouse, if you want or have to work 80 hours a week, you still have no business having kids. Children need both parents.
15
Funny observation...
I've actually known men who return to work after vacation or a long holiday, glad to be away from the rigors of family life.
They see work as an escape.
1
There is also research that shows that successful women with children are judged more favorably than successful women without. So it can cut the other way as well.
13
100% true. I've seen this in an incredibly competent senior manager suddenly getting the cold shoulder - very openly, casually, and illegally. the boss seemed to assume that discrimination against mothers, or anyone they didn't feel right about regardless of the numbers, was fine. it doesn't matter how hard a woman works, how much flex everyone else is given, or how progressive a boss claims to be - this bias is real and damaging.
8
Wow the comments clearly illustrate the negative biases and attitudes highlighted in the article. I suspect many of the responders who have such negative views of working mothers are also anti-abortion and against welfare and food assistance for mothers. There is a need for serious examination of the cultural issues at play here.
8
I think that is a big leap and a big set of assumptions. Many of the views here, including mine, take issue with the notion that motherhood and parenthood should be singled out for exceptional treatment and protection, and that other non-parents (most often women, btw) are asked to do more to cover for the person who is out on maternity leave or who has frequent absences and outside obligations because of children.
We should be addressing the issue of work-life balance for everyone, not just for mothers. A woman without children could be caring for elderly or sick parents or other relatives, or she may have outside interests and concerns that have nothing to do with caregiving. Those should be given no less priority than the needs and outside interest and concerns of child rearing.
21
Really? I suspect, on the contrary, that the hostility against women who ask for accomodation for pregnancy is due to propaganda that advertises abortion as a solution to social problems related to pregnancy. After all, they made their "choice".
At the company I work at, I've seen two pregnant women get HIRED, within the past six months!
My experience, like Jen's, is that I have had to compensate for the moms, especially when they have very young children (who are sick a LOT). We need paid leave, for a year, and job security for those moms - like most other civilized countries.
Regarding salary lag - as I've put in 60 hour weeks over the years, watching the new moms struggle to put in 30-40, it is obvious that I'm learning more and adding more value because I'm putting in the time. So, I don't see how this can be measured appropriately when time spent, is different. Those are choices families make when they have kids and work. Only so much time in the week.
20
It is kind of an endless circle...
The children are raised in daycare settings, with other children, and they pass the germs routinely. The working parent takes time off to care for the child, and often has no sick time for herself. She comes in ill to the office and is not at 100percent. You wish she'd stay home until she is not ill, but the sick days are used up for the children.
Non-working parents pick up the slack... It happens again and again and again.
I pity the children who are put into cars at 5 or 6 am to join the other children in daycare, instead of staying at home in their beds sleeping, because the parent also works outside of the home.
Two-parent families have a distinct workplace advantage against one person struggling to do both jobs, with paid help even. Singles, particularly women, are expected to be sympathetic to the needs of other people's children.
10
As a former plaintiffs' employment attorney, I spent many years working to confront and end workplace discrimination against women (and other protected classes of workers). However, after I left the practice of law and worked for a very progressive large corporation, I must admit that I came to resent the many burdens employees without young children were pressured to bear on behalf of mothers. These burdens ranged from the semi-coercive requirement to donate money to the baby gift envelopes that were passed around for managers having children, to the extra work the childless were required to do while parents were on child-birth leave (up to 90 days and sometimes for more than one co-worker at a time). I have no particular quarrel with the policy of providing leave, but it should be done in a way that employers don't unduly burden the childless co-workers.
129
Is there a way we can no see that as a burden? First of all, most parents, male and female, want and need to have jobs, and also want and need to care for children, so improved, pro-family workplaces will help. Second, as a single female with no children, yes, I have resented having to bear more of a co-worker with children's work. But I don't blame them, I blame our anti-family, sexist workplace culture. I will gladly take less productivity at work for healthier, happier families and children, because those children are going to be adults one day, and I am going to depend on them to be my doctors or fix my plumbing. I want them to be happy, well-adjusted kids. I hope you can see the bigger picture benefits here.
34
I worked and lived in Canada for many years, where the leave policies are more like those in Europe. Companies adjust over time to accommodate leaves - there are many contract jobs to cover the work, and this becomes more and more common over time. There is no reason that companies should burden other employees to "cover" unless the time off is so short that it's not "worth it" to bring in a contractor. My view is, extend the leaves and make the duration of job coverage worth someone taking it for 6-12 months. Even in specialized fields there can be willing workers who want that 6-12 months for experience, extra income, or a potential future job. We are so short sighted here in the US on this whole issue.
17
After a miscarriage at 41 and accepting I would be childless, I applied for and interviewed for a job in my field. The interviewer asked me "you're not just going to take this job then go on maternity leave, are you?"
While surprised, I just smiled and said nope! - I wanted a job.
Eight months into the job I saw why my then-future boss asked me this: there were by then four pregnant women on staff. And we had a workplace baby shower for every pregnancy, even though Emily Post says only a mother's first child should get a shower.
The most senior of these women left then returned from a four-month leave giving birth to her third child. And she talked on and on about how wonderful it was to be a mother, and how everyone should do it. OK, thanks for the tip.
Another millenial friend used her maternity leave from her then-five year job, to interview and get hired at a different job, which she started when she went back to work.
All this talk about the need to support mothers in the workplace needs to acknowledge the trade-offs.
5
Having experienced some work efficiency problems with mothers with school children, I put into effect a program in two suburban facilities that I had heard about being successful in other companies. We created "mom" shift jobs (actually available to men and women). After some experimentation, we went with five hour work days, with a starting time of 9:30 AM (flexible actually) and finish time of 2:30 PM allowing coordination of a range of parental tasks including school drop offs and pickups.
Some people are quite surprised to learn that this has been a very successful program with some very especially dedicated workers. We honestly have not seen less performance from these workers in five hours than others accomplish in eight.
Now in Manhattan I haven't seen this put into effect. So many people (lots of them using the commute excuse) already arrive at 10 or so and leave at 3, of course not for parenting, but for what other inventive reasons people can contrive.
59
Great idea; I hope you and others find another nickname for this flexible shift, because "mom shift", like "mommy track", adds to the stigma and perception that it's only mothers who need time accommodations. I have co-workers, without children but with aging, fragile parents who need daily or weekly help, who would benefit from this. Co-workers with partners who are HIV-positive and have a lot of health issues that require the partner to take time away from work. Co-workers who need and want to pursue their own educations. Etc. etc.
So much of what this article and the comments reveal is the inhumane, inflexible nature of the American workplace and greed of employers. I have a colleague in another unit who just had a baby. She'll be out for three months. Our company has hired a fulltime temp to cover her work while she is out, instead of downloading her work onto others. That costs money. If your workplace is just adding another employee's work to yours, when a colleague is absent for any reason (wait until some of the childless start dealing with parents in their 80s with dementia -- that is worse than childcare, because the crises can be very unpredictable), that is a failure of management. Blame your managers, not your colleagues -- and talk to HR about getting more help, or consider finding a workplace that is more supportive of actual human needs.
17
Working a 5 hour shift .... at the same pay as 8 hours or pro rated?
Pregnancy and baby care constitute temporary disability. Employers ought to provide for it in planning employee compensation for the entire firm. The playing field could be leveled by a government insurance program compensating firms for temporary employee disability. Individual careers will continue to be hurt by any temporary disability; however, six months leave even for two or three babies should not hugely impact a 30 year career, if such careers still existed. As with any temporary disability, the employee returning to work should not be excessively punished for the lost months. An employment system that demands excessive effort from all its employees is the culprit behind the hardships inflicted on mothers.
7
I am a mother of four who has worked in variety of workplaces throughout my 30-year career I can say the workplaces that were hostile to pregnant women were, in general, terrible places to work for pretty much everyone. Luckily today we have ways to spread the word via sites like Glassdoor.com and social media. Let’s use that power.
66
These comments are a perfect example of why mothers don't speak up about unfair treatment at work. Personal anecdotes or hypothetical arguments, like "childless employees work more than those with children" are commonly used to justify the treatment of working mothers. In fact, mothers are equally or more productive as other employees.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2014/2014-001.pdf
Furthermore, many studies show employers tend to reward men, and fathers specifically, with higher salaries and more promotions. This is particularly true of employers that place a high value on activities like 'staying late' which don't necessarily correlate with higher performance, but which commonly conflict with childcare realities or emergencies, which frequently fall to mothers.
29
You can show your studies prove anything you want. The comments or anecdotes in these comments are the result of real-life experiences of many who have witnessed first hand what happens when a co-worker decides to have a child and is pregnant. The other workers are told to pitch in, work harder, take up the slack, etc. They are not paid more, given a promotion or given a reward. Telling them that what they see is not real may make you feel better. It just makes those of us who witness it tune out those who tell us that pregnant workers are less productive. Or those who tell us that it is our obligation to gladly cover for them.
11
As a professional woman and a mother, I am very sensitive to the issues discussed in this article. My experience working abroad has convinced me this is a uniquely American problem. In Israel, Italy or even China, I never experienced any kind of disparagement or discrimination against me because of my being a mother. However, all the professional women I met in these countries took their motherhood as a matter of course, never demanded special treatment beyond what is mandated by law, and never bored their coworkers with baby pictures or tales of maternal woe. Not so American women. Recently I met a professional woman who could talked of nothing but her two daughters, so much so that I had to interrupted her quite rudely. So I am somewhat sympathetic toward the female manager alluded to at the beginning of the article who let go of a pregnant employee because she was too focused on her pregnancy. I’d probably do the same. There is something pathological about American mothers in the workplace and it is coming from both sides of the equation.
67
But who is expected to cover for pregnant women and new mothers? Usually other women are expected to step in and do the extra work, smiling and happy at helping out and ruining their own schedules. Don't they have a right to complain?
88
Go ahead and complain to your boss AND insist that they find staff to fill the opening as long as it exists. This would be my advice if your colleague was pregnant or a new mom or a cancer patient or out of the office for a protracted time for rehab. Work is not volunteer work. “Covering for” is cheap business at work and it stinks. Speak up and stand your ground. You can also plan now to be an enlightened boss on this - hire to fill the opening - and remember to always SPEAK UP.
5
No, you don’t have the right to complain. You have the right to discuss the situation with your boss and work out a solution. That’s what professionals do.
3
Yes, those that receive uncompensated extra work have a right to complain, but the complaint should be directed at management for either not compensating those that pick up the slack or for not hiring a temp. Other countries do this, the US could do it, too.
4
What a mean-spirited society we live in.
French mothers have the legal right to take maternity leave of six weeks before a birth and 10 weeks after, a total of 16 weeks. This rises to 26 weeks if they have two or more children already. This maternity leave is obligatory.
100
There is a LOT of anti-mother bias in workplaces, and I too have observed it being openly, shamelessly voiced. Let's face it: our culture is quite misogynistic. And women have anti-female biases too, which are cynically exploited to pit women against each other. Our society doesn't really like children, as much as we claim the contrary; if we did like children, we would provide the kinds of social services that would benefit them AND take some pressure off their mothers. Mothers who work outside the home are in a no-win situation.
64
I have no children and have never earned more because of it. But I have had to work additional hours, sometimes significant, to cover for women on maternity leave. Companies have an obligation not to just kick the can down the road to women without children in order to appear “family-friendly.”
136
In most developed countries, companies hire someone to step in and take over for women or men who are out on parental leave, rather than dump the work on existing employees. Only in America do we fail to acknowledge that pregnancy and parenthood are a natural part of life for many humans in the workforce. And so we fail to plan and provide for everyone in the workplace. It’s an antiquated, misogynistic way of thinking that I fear will never change in this country.
6
In the late 70's, I applied for a job and one of the concerns by my potential boss was because I was getting married soon..., wouldn't I want a baby? I asked him if he was allowed to ask me that. I never got the job.
25
Younger women who could become mothers are also discriminated against. “I don’t want to hire someone who may go on a long maternity leave in the next yr or 2”
3
"She was way too focused on her pregnancy. It was distracting her. I didn’t think she was going to be committed enough to the job, so I had to let her go.”
Ignoring - as usual - the obvious question: was it true?
10
I think in the case as stated, it's impossible to know whether she's "going to be" committed enough to the job before she's actually in the midst of doing it (presumably after her child is born.) If you're assuming she wasn't committed to her job without basis in her actual performance--based only on her pregnancy status--then that's discrimination.
1
I have been working for almost 3 decades now and in all those years I have never heard anyone - male or female - say anything to any employee - male or female - remotely like the kinds of things the author mentions and claims are widespread. This article is another one of the specious claims that it is taboo to question. Employers who allow such comments to pass without censure will suffer serious consequences. As a result such behavior isn’t countenanced. What the author seems to want is accommodations: mothers are to be given greater flexibility than other employees, perhaps lighter workloads or more flexibility in schedules but be paid the same as colleagues who don’t demand such accommodations. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. If You make a choice to be a parent - mother or father - then you sign up for the whole package: more expense, less personal time, more stress; and more joy and love and satisfaction. One of the things that gives for most of us is career. Get over it.
22
That would be great if we didn't live in a society where we occasionally need other people. Most people want jobs and families. It's natural and nothing you say is going to stop that, despite the fact that, yes, in 2018, reproduction is a choice. Most of us who don't have our own kids want other peoples' kids to grow up educated, safe, and well-adjusted. Supporting families supports this, so even though I technically shouldn't pay taxes for stuff that benefits other people's kids that I did not choose to have, I gladly pay those taxes.
10
That's right - because your experience is the only thing that has ever happened. If you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist.
Wow! There are probably a lot of working mothers who would like to work where you do! No comments ever in 30 years! Astonishing!
I don't read anywhere in this essay where the author is demanding accommodations. What I read is that the author is suggesting that bias exists, and we should be more intentionally aware of it.
I am an unmarried woman with no children and I work in a medical microbiology lab in a hospital with a woman who has kids. She is a single mother and sometimes has to leave early b/c the kid is sick or she has to go to a school meeting. I take all the holiday shifts b/c (a) I want the time-and-half and (b) I know other people like her have families and want to be with them. I don't mind nearly as much as I would were it not for the fact that my coworker thanks me and shows her generosity towards me. I feel valued by her. I had another coworker at another job who after giving birth sequestered herself in her office while she pumped herself, would stick a sign on the door proclaiming this fact and behaved as though the birth of her child was the Second Coming. There is a definite superiority factor on the part of some women who have children towards those who do not. It is difficult not to feel resentful towards women like this especially if they are seemingly "taking advantage" of the situation. I'm not in charge of hiring or payroll. But at ground level, I am much more likely to help a woman (and feel good about it) who also values my contribution as an unmarried childless woman, to the workplace.
278
I don’t understand your criticism of your old coworker who pumped in her office. Sequestered herself? What should she have done, kept the door open and thrown a party?
4
A woman wanting privacy while pumping breast milk is hardly any kind of superiority factor. It's basic health and nutrition for a baby.
9
When women breastfeed at work one interpretation is that mothers do not need any time off to care for their children. It’s wonderful when rich women have the option, but if this were to become a standard it would be draconian — like something out of a 19 century factory. After all, pregnant and nursing mothers did used to work in horrid conditions and the earliest labour regulations were passed partly to help them.
When mothers are wealthy enough to stay home this is a beautiful thing — for the child, for the mother (who can now have more rest and time with her children) and society. The Greek philosophers believed leisure was one of the highest goods because in time free from work we can enjoy art, philosophy, music, friendship and so on.
Rather than make it easier for mothers to work maybe there should be family tax deductions that would help one earner support a family?
In terms of discrimination against working mothers: every working mother of young kids I know is exhausted, even the ones with stay at home husbands. Many are unhappy. Are exhausted folks going to be the best employees? Even at my kids’ schools, the teachers who had two or three young kids were not as good as either the childless (child free?) or those whose kids were older. There are, of course, women with lots of energy who can be superwoman — I just don’t know any of them personally.
5
This benevolent-sounding argument for mothers to have more rest, more leisure, less exhaustion smacks of paternalism, along the same lines as the tired old argument that outlawing abortion would "protect women from regret." Women are adults. It would be fine to ask us what we want, but 21st century public policy should not be based on Greek philosophy or 19th century factory conditions.
18
Maybe put the needs of the children first?
I have never met a child or a parent who preferred paid help to be present raising the children while the parents serve their paid employers.
Families are best equipped to raise children, not government programs and subsidies for outsourcing this important work.
2
I agree! The best way to put childrens' needs first is to make it easier for both parents to both work AND care for children through workplace reforms. We will all benefit. As a bonus, the fertility rate in the US will rise, which is at its lowest point ever (also in today's NYT), so if you are one of those folks who is really concerned about that I hope you support generous flex time and family leave policies.
2
One of the few upsides of the work as a lawyer chained to the billable hour is that coworkers dont in my experience grumble about having to pick up the slack for a working mom. You work more ' you get the credit for those hours worked. In slow times co workers are thrilled if you leave hours for them.
6
In a culture of “at will” employment, where an employer can fire an employee for no reason at any time, it is almost impossible to prove that a firing was due to pregnancy. This is entirely unfair to any pregnant women who were fired immediately after announcing their pregnancies to their companies. In federal consulting (my field) a pregnancy affects the bottom line when the employee is unbillable to the client (the federal government) for the length of their maternity leave. My boss literally told me this before he fired me and I still lost my case at any severance because the company can afford better legal representation.
18
Does the world need more children? It does not. We already have too many humans on the planet. Is it fair to those who choose not to have children to stick them with far more hours of work but pay them the same? It is not.
I'd love to work in a world where everyone got a sabbatical -- every 7th year off to do something personally meaningful -- as academics do. Then those of you who insist on having children could do that, while I could work on a volunteer project or otherwise fulfill myself. But I don't see that happening soon, and I'm tired of picking up the slack for people with children. (No, I won't need their children to care for me in my old age. Robots would have less of a negative impact on the planet.)
25
Academics don't get a sabbatical; my husband is a full professor who works 60 hours a week, year round. He knows professors from all over the world; they all work long hours. The sabbatical maybe existed at some point; When? I don't know. It's long dead.
1
Sabbaticals are rare in academia these days. Most professors never get one.
2
Ah, but your world does need more children. Did you ever think about who is going to make payments to provide your Social Security payments, or take care of you in your nursing home? Nations with negative population growth are doomed—look at Japan.
I am, at 56, one of those women whose career trajectory dramatically changed after motherhood, to the surprise of everyone including me. I chose to step off, to go parallel, because I was raised by a mom who didn’t. She was one of the original pioneers. She was rarely really there. My job was high stress, lots of hours and travel, and imaginary crises. Moving to a field with long term deadlines and fewer day to day crises was huge, but a lot less lucrative. Kids take a ton of energy. Not the PTA and the soccer games, but quiet talks about why Lizzie was so mean and why Sam never passes the ball. To notice the body language that says something is very wrong.
I have less money, but I am rich in things that matter to me.
And Jen, I hear you. Valid points, especially if it is chronic.
49
“Imaginary crises.” I live that! If we could figure out how to operationalize that, I bet we’d find that twenty percent of white collar work time is dedicated to imaginary crises, and double that on university campuses.
1
In most countries and cultures, babies are welcomed and celebrated as symbols of the future and as beloved and necessary members of their communities. Evidently not in the US.
The people mentioned in the article and many of the commenters reflect a tragic lack of empathy and of appreciation for the common good and an appalling, ultimately self-defeating selfishness.
Adding insult to injury, my impression from this article is that it's OK for employees to be distracted at work by their new car, pro football players and teams and the Super Bowl, upcoming travel, and problems with the neighbors - - but it's not OK for pregnant women to be distracted by their pregnancy.
173
The new cars and football schedule distractions are temporary though -- natural bonding with other people who are THERE, in the workplace...
Babies are wonderful! They deserve someone caring for them full time! It's wonderful too, that women want careers, Cordelia.
The trick is learning to balance your choices so that when you are at work, your mind is 100percent on your work (and even those bonding activities with your fellow co-workers...)
Naturally, babies SHOULD take priority in a mother's life if their needs are not being met in the home. When a woman's child is ill, it's not the same thing as needing to wash your car on the weekend. THey are living creatures who demand attention in the present.
It's competitive, Cordelia. The job and the family issues will compete. Smart women understand this, and it factors into their career and family choices. Good luck. Follow the examples of millions of mothers who have gone before you and put the needs of your children first, if you can afford it... Society thanks you.
10
@Cordelia28: Do you know someone who is as distracted by a new car, pro football, etc., etc., as someone is by a small creature dancing on her bladder and kicking her in the ribs? I sure don't.
3
I'm glad there was reference to single men who also face discrimination due to lack of children. I am one of those men. I have been told over the past 20 working years that it would "look better" if I had a family. I was passed over for a promotion of one of our foreign offices. I was passed over for an internal post which had significant external engagement (with spouses present). Through my conversations with my married colleagues, they are earning more than I am (mainly marriage based allowances).
All these have a major impact on my career and future all because I am not married or have children.
Hopefully the conversation #MomToo will also touch on the issue of single men and their discrimination.
33
If you were a man who had children and demanded family leave, you would ALSO be looked at less favorably!! Not fair for men either way.
After reading these depressing comments I am very grateful that my department colleagues in an academic discipline are 3/5 mothers with one father of 3 young children. We collaborate and help each other. In fact one of my colleagues is pregnant and we are juggling things because she will be on leave in the Spring. The same was done for me once and we are joyful rather than resentful. If only other people could operate this way. We all need some help at some point in our lives and no, becoming a mother is not like traveling around the world on a whim. If women are to be punished for childbearing in their careers, then we are truly missing out on what they have to offer.
79
No offense, but you work in the luxury of an academic setting. There are no daily tasks -- maybe teaching a few times a week? -- that you must perform or you would be missed.
So you wait to publish a paper, or have to plan ahead to read and grade papers. You can schedule those tasks around a living person's little needs. Not true in other, more demanding jobs.
4
Our nation has always been supported by the unpaid or underpaid labor of women and ethnic minorities (in particular blacks). To those who complain that the company's work has to be done, and that cutting mothers some slack means that non-mothers have to do more: other societies (e.g., the Scandinavians) understand that we are all in the same boat, and that bearing and rearing the next generation is just as important as increasing this quarter's profits. And their citizens are healthier, happier, and better off economically than ours.
And to Jen in NY who says that someone else's kids won't be paying for her Social Security because there won't be any: if we all work together to elect some FDR-type politicians, you can have a decent old age without having to throw mothers under the bus.
191
In most Scandinavian, and many other European countries, they hire temporary staff to cover during maternity leave. It is standard practice. The work does not automatically fall to other employees as it does in America. I’ve been on both sides - going on maternity leave and covering for someone else’s leave - and it is a mess. Until it becomes standard practice (as in budgets are set to pay for it) to hire temporary coverage for leave, there will be frustrated coworkers and bias against mothers. It’s a systemic problem.
201
I work for an American company and we always hire freelancers to cover when someone goes on maternity leave. Expecting other employees to cover an entire FT person's work is ridiculous.
Also, I will say that people both with kids and without kids need to work from home, come in late, leave early, etc ALL THE TIME. Usually it's for logistical issues (car or transit problem) or health. But sometimes people just email out "[name] hard stop at 5pm" with no reason, and it's perfectly accepted. People just routinely cover for each other - it's just how we roll - and it's generally acknowledged that when we all do that for each other, no matter the reason, everyone is happier.
Most professional career roles are not simply fungible with temps. Hiring temporary replacements has a HUGE overhead cost.
I have 2 employees, 1 male and 1 female hired in the same year. Both married with children. The woman leaves at 4:15 every day to pick her kids up and the man routinely stays till 6. Who gets more done? I’ll tell you the answer but you won’t be happy. The woman also rarely emails after 4:15 about work issues while the man always does. He simply does more and it has been reflective in his raises. It’s NOT a male- female thing, it’s who gets it done for me.
67
The old canard about men working harder than women is a stereotype that needs to be put to rest once and for all. I've seen the other side of that coin all too often. That male employee was probably still at the office at 6:15 because he spent the day working on his fantasy football draft (excuse me - you call it networking). He had the luxury of being at the office because his wife was organized enough get her work done by 4:15 and to pick up the kids from practice 4:30. She probably did twice the work in half the time, because she's learned to be efficient to in order to make it this far. I've seen case after case of women meeting or exceeding their targets and still not getting the same promotion or bonus as the men because she's not one of the boys. No matter how well or efficiently a women does a job, men don't value her contribution the same as if it were done by a man.
283
The male you're referring to likely is able to stay until 6 and emails after work because a) he doesn't have children (yet) or b) HIS wife/partner/husband is the one at home with the kids doing the work of 2 people. Perhaps the one who "gets it done" has to focus only on his own work while someone else picks up the slack in his family life.
31
THIS. I'm so glad someone said that directly. The person with a spouse or partner taking primary responsibility for child care (and other necessities of life) has the ability to give more time to work, but *someone* has to make sure the children are cared for!
1
It is an open secret too that stay-at-home parents do not give as much credence to the opinions on childrearing of their full-time working spouses, though those spouses are out of the home only 60 hours on average out of the 168 hours in a typical week.
7
The solution to filling in for employees absent due to pregnancy or maternity leave is the same solution employers should offer for leaves of absence due to illness -- seek additional employees to fill in the gaps. Overburdening other employees due to an employee's leave is the result of poor management and should not be blamed on the employee taking that leave.
342
Truer words never said. Unfortunately this was not the case where I worked. I joined the university when my children were in grade school. We were an office of working moms who covered for each other so no one missed important events. However when the younger women became pregnant we not only covered their maternity time but in every case the subsequent 26 weeks of family leave. Sadly not one woman returned after FMLA. We missed many of our own children’s events to cover for the employee who was out on maternity. And then another 2 to 3 months during the hiring of a replacement. I would never again work in an office with pregnant age women.
24
I know this is a crazy proposition for some but business's exist to make money.
You're telling the employer they need to take the time and money to train pay a new person jsu to 'fill in the gaps'. Maybe that works for simple work but when we start moving up the payscale, are you finding competent people from a Temp agency? How many good employees are going to sign up for 3 months on and off?
12
Not an illness, it is part of (most) lives.
But otherwise agree.
1
I have a simple question which no one who discusses (the quite necessary) need to support moms in the workplace seems to want to answer: who is going to compensate other employees in the workplace for the extra hours they are going to have to put in, when the mom is on (paid) maternity leave? Do people think the work will do itself? And in certain professions (such as secretarial), that extra work tends to go to... another woman. Who will be expected to take on the workload cheerfully and graciously, "taking one for the team." Maybe if she has a thoughtful boss, she'll get extra time off or extra pay... but very often this doesn't happen. This of course is not just limited to women singles, but to men singles as well: in these cases, workers with children tend to be cut a lot of slack with time off and family emergencies, while single employees are expected to "be available." My question is... are single people expected to function as de facto unpaid help for women who have opted to bear children? Do single people really have no other social or aspirational function than to "fill in" for moms and dads? Are they awful for pointing this out? Is it all about "taking one for the team"? Are the hoary arguments going to be trotted out that "my kids will be paying for your Social Security" - in an age when 20 years from now we won't even HAVE Social Security, most likely? Not asking this to be difficult: just, HOW do we get by the issue of unpaid labor here?
I
420
I'm a single woman happy to work extra to help shoulder the load for working moms. Keeping families healthy seems to me to be a good investment. Parenthetically, I have always "over-worked" and seen other women do the same while men take time off to play golf and call it billable hours.
241
Those who never have children will hopefully grow old and become senior citizens who happily accept their social security checks produced from the working hours and paychecks of other people's children. So it works out.
44
"HOW do we get by the issue of unpaid labor here?"
By demanding, personally and institutionally, to be paid for it.
It's been for far too long that we've let our workplaces, our governments, our institutions get away with the imbalance towards employers' needs that other nations due a much better job of evening.
There is NO reason there should not be a higher minimum wage, MANDATORY sick and vacation time, not to mention PAID maternity/paternity leave, except greed and allowance of oligarchs to set the agenda. Most other first world nations have all of this, and seem not to have collapsed from it.
92
"...the earnings of women who have children during the prime childbearing years of 25 to 35 never recover relative to their husbands’..."
"... having a child leads to a big dip in short-term earnings and long-term salary trajectory."
And this doesn't make sense? If you take a significant period of time out of work relative to those who don't, why wouldn't it make sense that your earnings would take a dip and not recover. If the husband took as long a period of time off to be a primary caregiver, would his salary dip and be as slow to recover? What about the worker who takes the same amount of time off for a personal project, say to travel the world or to write a novel. Any data here?
32
You are really trying to compare someone who is traveling around the world or write a novel to a mother? And it is specious to compare a man taking time off to be the primary caregiver - there are far far fewer men than women who do so. Childbearing years and progression into high levels in an organization collide. This is a very real challenge for women. It does not advance progress to poopoo it and make false analogies.
22
Yes, i actually am comparing someone who wants to travel around the world or write a novel to a mother in terms of career issues. Both are personal choices that have implications for personal fulfillment, income and career trajectory, among other issues. And just because fewer men choose to take time to be primary caregivers doesn't mean that those that do, or would wish to, don't face dissimilar issues.
5
rtj, I agree with you — it makes sense.
Discrimination against mothers is not discrimination against women. Motherhood does not lead to negative outcomes for married women. Often the husband and wife as a team become more effective than they would have as two individuals. My husband was able to work 80 hours a week at one point in his life partly because I — a mother— wanted to be at home with the kids and could thus manage things like cooking, cleaning and even our social lives better than when we were both working.
Even when I was a working mother, I was glad to step back. I didn’t want to apply for the next promotion. I went from being an exceptional employee to an average one.
The solution to the sheer amount of work that motherhood takes is not for random fellow employees and companies to get hit with a productivity penalty but for women to parent within a partnership. This is how motherhood has been effectively managed for thousands of years.
Rather than talk about discrimination against mothers perhaps we would be better to talk about why more women can’t afford to stay home. Or why more couples don’t get married, or can’t afford to. There’s a lot of suffering in this world but this is the wrong issue to work on.
9
When I was finishing up my grad degree and going to job interviews I was often asked if I had a boyfriend, did I expect to get married, and what were my intentions about having children. And, this was for an academic job. Of the about 50 graduates most of the men were hired and only one of the women.
15
Aren't those questions illegal?
1
I hope these interviews took place sometime before all those questions became illegal!
1
I had same questions. And had to dress like a little man scientist, padded shoulders and all.
I did get a job (funding withdrawn after long hassle of gaining security clearance) after judging what the techie little man outfit would look like so I wore a blue button downed shirt and kakhai whatever pants and got hired--every other applicant was male and dressed identically.
1
Say two people are working on a project with a fixed deadline and one of them cannot continue because of the pregnancy but the project has to be finished. What are the other person's options? She/he can finish the project alone but then the pregnant woman should not get credit for it or not to employ her in a first place in anticipation of this situation or what are the other options when a substitute worker is not available?
24
Say two people are working on a project with a fixed deadline and one of them cannot continue because of pregnancy bur the project has to be finished. What are the other person's options? That would be to be an adult and figure it out and not to resent your co-worker or blame her for the timing of a work project that is probably not within her control.
13
It usually provokes a highly negative reaction when these questions are brought up. Moms: please be assured that when they are brought up, no one is questioning your need for support, or maternal leave with pay. Maternal leave with pay is a thing we ought to have, by law. But to just leave it at that, with no further consideration of the realities of the situation, particularly with small businesses with fewer employees, to assume that everything is hunky dory because Jim or Carrie who hasn't got a family will always be there to burn the midnight oil in Jean's absence... that is asking for trouble down the line. It sends a strange message to the single female employee, in particular: "Your highest duty is to be an unpaid worker on behalf of a mother with children. No commensurate pay or recognition for you -- you're there to support our society as an unpaid, unacknowledged caregiver." (Frankly, single women do this enough when caring for aging relatives - and by this argument, they are also expected to do it in the workplace, too.) Please don't get me wrong. We must have paid leave for moms. But this system will fall apart if it keeps relying on uncompensated shadow labor. If the system depends on someone being quiet and "taking one for the team" while everyone else celebrates -- and gets paid -- it is a doomed system in the end. It just won't work. It has a fatal flaw if this discrepancy is not addressed.
225
"Frankly, single women do this enough when caring for aging relatives - and by this argument, they are also expected to do it in the workplace, too."
Let's turn this statement around. A single woman needs to take time off to care of an aging relative. That may be for weeks not days. FMLA covers them. But who at work picks up THAT slack? Possibly working mothers.
Folks let's have more empathy for working mothers and stop looking at it as a burden on everyone else left in the workplace. The mother taking time off to care for a new born doesn't last forever. And the company you work for, regardless of its size, should compensate those somehow for picking up the slack during the time the mother is out with the child (by the way these new born children are the future workforce).
I was interviewing for a job at a lab. The pre-employment drug test included a pregnancy test. I found out after I was hired, the lab director was matter of fact about it-"of course we don't want to hire anyone if they are pregnant". Of course.
12
How is it legal to give a pregnancy test to a prospective employee and have the employer see the results? What about medical privacy? I've only had to consent to a drug test twice in 25 years of employment but I remember signing a consent form for the drug test.
26
It's not.
I guess you can call it discrimination, even when those in "power" think they are not being discriminatory.
but my take is that in a MALE dominated world-view, this is just another example of how we fail to advance as a society.
We read plenty of different approaches to motherhood, parental leave, child care and such in other societies (mainly european ones).
It all comes down to equality:
Male vs Female
Black vs white
Old vs Young
We have a long way to go ....
14
“She was way too focused on her pregnancy. It was distracting her"
How can an employer deal with a woman who is distracting colleagues with her talk of pregnancy or children? Would telling her not to do that be considered a form of discrimination?
23
Oh I don't know. . . a lot of my co-workers bore me with talk of their rambling ons about their own things. As an adult, when I get tired of listening, I can tell them I have some work to do and go do it. Oh, and I can be happy for my coworker too.
24
So true. I've worked at two top law firms and witnessed this open bias at both pregnant women and women who aren't even pregnant yet based on the fact that they *could* become pregnant in the future. In one case a colleague was told by a managing partner that after she had her baby she wouldn't be interested in coming back to her job (then she was made redundant while on maternity leave), and in another case there was a female partner making a dismissive remark about a junior female lawyer's commitment to her job - a junior lawyer with no children who was not pregnant - saying that she was going to end up getting pregnant and leaving the firm. I'm currently beginning the second trimester of my first pregnancy and sweating this issue as I'm at a career transition and worried because I know I'll be at a disadvantage on the job market relative to my previous childless self - and I'm in my late 30s.
87
Myself -- three of my sister in laws -- my best friend -- and at least a dozen colleagues of mine from roughly 1982-2004 -- all left their jobs (some quite good paying and high level) or went part time, after they had a baby. My stepdaughter is contemplating this now, and she has a six figure tech job. Not all women quit when they have kids, but quite a few do -- so a boss (male or female) think that his 30-something female employees "might get pregnant and quit" is just being a realist.
8
Your realist take proves the author's point about bias. Consider that it is widely viewed as unacceptable to fire people or pass them up for promotion because you expect that in the future they will be less committed to a job or lower performing based on their race, even if that belief is based on a trend in population-level data. Fairness requires that people be treated as individuals, not subjected to lowered expectations because of statistics. Pregnant women also deserve to be treated as individuals, or as 1.5 individuals max!
Women in countries with more family friendly policies are more likely to stay in their jobs. Just saying.
1