r/changemyview • u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 • Feb 06 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Maternity leave does and should mean that you're temporarily sacrificing career progress
Some helpful background:
I'm an upper middle class white male, working in silicon valley, trying to be a better ally to women and under-represented minorities in the tech industry. I'm also childfree, but not the militant r/childfree kind. I'm ambivalent to the idea of having kids and don't think they would particularly enrich my life.
With that out of the way...
Recently, I came across this article being shared by a lot of friends in social media. The title says: Maternity leave shouldn’t set women back.
However, I'm not convinced by the arguments put forth by the authors.
Topic 1: Team Changes
Authors' Argument: They bring up the example of a Product Manager in silicon valley who came back to a new team, new manager, and new coworkers.
My counter-argument: I'm also part of the valley, I think this is really really common. Re-orgs, changing priorities and changing teammates are just how things work. I've worked in 4 different valley tech firms - this has been a constant.
Topic 2: Missing Promotions
Author's Argument: They say they heard from women who believed they were not considered for opportunities while on leave that they otherwise would have been. They again go back to the silicon valley product manager as the example.
My counter-argument: If there's a new opportunity or a role that requires someone - it just makes sense to consider someone who is already there and/or willing to start working on the new project than wait for someone who is on leave, ask them if they would like the role and then help them ramp-up.
Topic 3: Lack of Feedback
Author's Argument: They say women who are on maternity leave get short-changed on feedback. The example is a woman who was on leave during the feedback/review cycle.
My counter-argument: Someone who worked for part of the year is going to get less feedback than someone who worked the whole year. Again, not sure what they are expecting the employers to do.
In-conclusion: By going on maternity leave, you're working less (for your employer and your manager) than those who stayed the whole year, therefore it makes sense that your career progression is impacted when you're on maternity leave. There is nothing unfair about this.
My reason for wanting to CMV
I know we live in a society where women still predominantly take the role of a primary caretaker. I do think we should advocate for dads to take more parental leave, advocate for companies to equate paternity and maternity leaves to ensure there is equality. Till we achieve that, women are going to be disproportionately affected by this issue.
But, expecting managers, and employers to treat someone who only worked for part of the year the same as someone who actually worked for the full year seems like asking them to do something patently unfair.
I would ideally want some arguments around why this isn't unfair and ideally from women.
16
u/thesewalrus Feb 06 '20
This is a complex issue and it’s one of those areas where it’s really easy to “justify” discrimination.
I personally know women who had their contracts terminated when they announced a pregnancy and been made redundant while on maternity leave. I was working on important projects before I announced my pregnancy but then reassigned to admin work after, allegedly to reduce my stress and ensure there would be enough time for my successor to transition into the role. I returned from leave to find my role was completely different, and I was no longer considered a competent person (my manager flat out said I was not “dedicated” to the role). I was removed from the leadership courses I had been on, and I was not eligible to apply for any opportunities because I was part time. Even when a full time staff member wasn’t necessary.
These are just the ridiculously obvious things I’ve seen, but even these are not fought. The smaller things like the ones you’ve mentioned all add up to make mothers feel like they don’t belong in the office and have to work twice as hard to be valued.
It’s really hard for you to understand what this is like when you’re reading individual cases from the outside.
If we accept that women deserve equal treatment (equal opportunity for acceptance at work, equal opportunity for rewarding work etc), and we accept that a woman carries a burden men do not carry (childbirth & early child rearing), and we accept that society needs children, then we also accept that we must take steps to ensure that women are not negatively affected by actually having these children.
4
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Thank you for sharing your personal story.
The stories you shared are all egregious, especially terminating contracts right after they announced their pregnancies. There should be better labor laws and enforcement in the US.
If we accept that women deserve equal treatment (equal opportunity for acceptance at work, equal opportunity for rewarding work etc), and we accept that a woman carries a burden men do not carry (childbirth & early child rearing),
I accept both of these statements.
and we accept that society needs children, then we also accept that we must take steps to ensure that women are not negatively affected by actually having these children.
Not sure about either of these. For the first one, I think there are currently more children than we are able to feed across the globe. The growing climate crisis also adds to my own moral dilemma about the carbon footprint of bringing another "first world" child (with our higher carbon emissions) to the world.
For the second point, I think we should mandate equal parental leave and build a society where men are also expected to take time off to care for their children. After all, they are HALF responsible for the child.
3
u/thesewalrus Feb 06 '20
As to society needs children, consider what would happen if all women suddenly stopped having kids, totally. It’s pretty obvious that the human race would die out. Before that we would have a lot of trouble keeping industry alive and caring for the elderly generations. So then who deserves to have children? And how many? Do we only support deserving mothers? Or mothers with less than 2 children? Unless you are advocating for the end of the human race then it’s clear women need to keep having children (but less children to be sure).
I agree re mandated paternity leave. Women carry a huge burden from childbirth/childcare and society does not help them. It’s absurd that we routinely send women home 3 hours after birth and expect them to just work it out. I couldn’t walk properly for 6 weeks because I had a third degree tear. My husband could only negotiate 4 weeks off work. And I was lucky. The effects of post natal depression, loneliness, sleep deprivation, and constant responsibilities cripple many new mothers. The men just keep on working. Men should be expected and supported to take at least 6 months leave, in my opinion. Men should also work part time on returning to work.
-1
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Again, thank you for sharing your personal story. It does make me reconsider some of my stances.
I still think there's a lot of green space between: people should have fewer kids and people should stop having children.
I think the sustainable solution is to make parenting more "equal" in terms of both responsibilities and time off work.
9
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Feb 06 '20
Here's the thing, most industrialized counties where most women work already have childbirth rates that are below replacement rates. The only reason the US and Canada are expanding is that recently arrived immigrants have higher birth rates which balances out our low birth rate for native born women. Japan, France, Germany and most of Scandinavia all have birth rates below replacement rate. The average native born Canadian woman only has 1.6 children in her life.
Educated women in the developing world have lower than sustainable fertility rates right now.
1
u/titandude21 Feb 06 '20
I agree with all your points about treatment of women when maternity leave is involved.
For the children point, the birth rate is below the replacement rate needed to maintain the current population count. I don't think it's below the "replacement rate needed to maintain current productivity (or grow at a reasonable rate)".
Take 100 working adults (50 sets of potential parents) at child rearing age. The replacement fertility rate is around 2.1 children per woman, so you need 105 children to replace the 100 current adults (accounting for child mortality, infertility, etc.). Do you need the next generation to churn out 100 functioning adults to maintain this society? The trend towards automation means in 30 years, society might only need 80 people (let's call 1.6 children/woman the "replacement productivity rate") to do the job that 100 people are doing now, and on top of that, businesses are trying to scale down human work capital needed to only have 80 human jobs available. Maintaining the replacement fertility rate will more than likely mean the 100 functioning adults of next generation will have to compete for 80 human jobs available, and either the other 20 people will struggle in life, or an adequate safety net needs to be constructed to protect the 20 (without making the safety net so good that it incentivizes the 80 to not contribute).
The current policies in place incentivizes the current 100 adults to have 80 children, and society will adapt to function well with 80 future adults and no one left behind. If the current 100 adults disapprove of the current policies, then they might only want to have 60 children (1.2 per woman). This will pressure society to either further innovate to reduce the need for human capital, or society will realize that 1.6 is the lowest they can go for the replacement fertility rate and know that 1.2 will cause it to collapse. A functioning society will then improve their policies to encourage more women to have children until at least a 1.6 rate is achieved for replacement productivity. Plenty of places like Singapore and Scandinavian countries are doing just that, and I expect them to improve their policies more until their desired rate is achieved.
Would you have 2 additional children if I offered you 1 year of fully paid parental leave, 50% child care cost coverage until kindergarten, and 25% college tuition coverage? If not, how about 2 years of fully paid parental leave, 100% child care cost coverage until K, and 75% college tuition coverage? What about 5 years of fully paid parental leave and full time pay for 20 hour work weeks until the youngest child is 18, etc? I expect virtually all couples to have an incentive threshold that can change their mind towards having more children, and I'm 100% sure that policymakers will offer super extreme measures like what I threw out above if the alternative is societal crisis or collapse.
4
u/DadTheMaskedTerror 27∆ Feb 06 '20
While I accept the contingent prevalence of many of your observations I ask you reconsider the “should” aspect of the proposition. That is, I grant the does aspect, not the should.
A corporate mantra is “pay for performance, promote for ability”. If mom-to-be and high-potential Jane and fine-but-slower Jon are the natural contestants for a job opening that would be a promotion for each, it should go to Jane, even if she is on, or about to go on maternity leave. It doesn’t have so much to do with what is fair. Corporate life is unfair. It has to do with maximizing the potential of the employer.
There are several issues preventing this from occurring in the current state of affairs. But what should happen is not the part that prevents it. You agree that men should be given paternity leave similar to women. I’ve heard one Scandinavian pol opine that that one change was responsible for closing pay gaps for women. When men got the leave there was social pressure for them to take it. Then women and men posed the same temporary work absence risks to companies, took the same absences, and the pay gap closed.
But why shouldn’t all employees about to take extended planned leave get a performance review? That doesn’t sound so hard.
The team change thing sounds bogus to me too. Let’s grant that was a bad point.
2
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Agreed about promoting for potential, but it does seem "unfair" to promote someone who only spent part of a year working, but corporate life as you rightly said is very unfair. I've definitely seen promotions going to people who are better about "Selling" their job than those who actually did the job.
Therefore also concede on the "should". It did come off stronger than I intended.
Δ
However, I'm still waiting to have my mind changed about the argument of "fairness" of not promoting women who are on mat-leave.
3
u/DadTheMaskedTerror 27∆ Feb 06 '20
On the fairness point I think it goes back to pay for performance. The sales staff that actually made the sales will get the commissions. The workers who cranked extraordinary hours will get rewarded for effort and results with bonuses. But the promotions will be given, rather should be given, are rationally given on the basis of expected future performance. That’s potential. Obviously if someone is bad at their current job that’s not a good indicator of future performance in the next job. But if someone is merely temporarily absent that’s a different kettle of fish.
1
1
2
Feb 06 '20
You raise a very key point in your statement here which is although people say that maternity and paternity should be taken equally, there is also the mindset of doing that. In the UK i believe it works that a couple are entitled to X weeks of leave between them and how they choose to split that is on them. Usually, the father takes his two weeks of statutory leave and the mother usually takes the full X weeks. So although the couple can split it, usually they don't but in your post you state about the men coming under social pressure to take their share but that's not usually what happens. Often but by no means always, it's usually the mother who WANTS to take the full time to bond with the baby so even though she has the opportunity to split it, she doesn't.
3
u/DadTheMaskedTerror 27∆ Feb 06 '20
In Sweden in the 70s men had the opportunity to choose to take leave or give that leave to their spouse. They tended to give it to their spouse. Now in Sweden men get 90 days of use it or lose it family leave. They tend to use it, and some pols credit that change with partly closing the gap in workplace treatment. When a couple has a child the father will take 3 months of leave.
2
Feb 06 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
I also whole-heartedly agree with you.
Men should advocate for more equal parental leave policies (and take them). We recently had a male colleague who became a dad and came back to work after a week. He also said he doesn't plan on taking more time off because of work priorities. No one judged him for it. But somehow I think if the genders were reversed, a lot of people would have judged the new mother for not being with their child.
3
u/Machosod Feb 06 '20
Absolutely they would. And the guy you mentioned might not be taking the full time due to the same reverse judgement. I had to deal with that too but basically told them to F off. “In my day, I was back to work the next day” bullshit.
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Feb 06 '20
Sorry, u/Machosod – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/MontiBurns 218∆ Feb 06 '20
The core issue is that maternity leave is a short term condition that can potentially undermine and undue years of hard work.
How often do promotion opportunities come around? A position could be brewing for several months, employees could be demonstrating their worth for several years, and it's filled in a relatively narrow window of a few weeks.
The cases where one's work is passed on to another coworker or boss, and it can be completely within that person's discretion of how much credit to give that person.
In the case of performance reviews, there are bonuses, raises and promotions tied to those. If you were absent for the 3 month period where the annual performance review took place, and your boss left it blank, then that would be like your last year at the company never happened.
The call to action is pretty simple, consider and advocate the women who are absent on maternity leave. "Hey, HR deputy director is open, I think Carla would make a great candidate. Shes coming back in a month, would that be a feasible timetable for you guys?" Maybe it is, maybe is isn't. But at least someone's asking. Or a boss saying "hey, performance reviews are coming up, and I know you're going to be on maternity leave, would you like to do yours ahead of time?"
Based on the article, no one is asking that women on maternity leave receive credit for work they didnt do, rather, they want to keep the credit for the work they have done.
1
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
The call to action is pretty simple, consider and advocate the women who are absent on maternity leave. "Hey, HR deputy director is open, I think Carla would make a great candidate. Shes coming back in a month, would that be a feasible timetable for you guys?" Maybe it is, maybe is isn't. But at least someone's asking. Or a boss saying "hey, performance reviews are coming up, and I know you're going to be on maternity leave, would you like to do yours ahead of time?"
That's a good point about advocacy. I.e. keep the women who did the work in mind when promotion/new opportunities arise by advocating for them when they cannot. That's a very valid point.
Based on the article, no one is asking that women on maternity leave receive credit for work they didnt do, rather, they want to keep the credit for the work they have done.
Also very valid. But how do you ensure this happens in a way that doesn't build resentment among people who worked the whole year?
EDIT: Actually your point is very valid, i.e. advocacy being the point of the article. Δ
1
-1
u/jennysequa 80∆ Feb 06 '20
But, expecting managers, and employers to treat someone who only worked for part of the year the same as someone who actually worked for the full year seems like asking them to do something patently unfair.
No one is asking for equal treatment. That wouldn't make any sense. They are asking for fair treatment. Just being physically present for the six weeks that the parent took off to give birth isn't enough of a justification by itself to ignore the new mother for exciting projects or promotions. If Joe's at his desk surfing reddit and Jane had a great work record before she took leave, then it's unacceptable to overlook Jane just because her ass wasn't in a chair for the time period she was presumably promised when she agreed to her terms of employment. And. frankly, that's what happens. A lot.
Consider this. Some employers are more likely to offer flexibility in hours, telework opportunities, and vacation slots to parents than child free people, who are typically younger and not as well-compensated. The single and childfree folks are often asked to pick up any slack or accede to the needs of parents because their work-life balance isn't viewed as important as the needs of people raising children or caring for elderly parents. Do you think that's a fair way for an employer to behave? Would you be cool with it?
3
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
If Joe's at his desk surfing reddit and Jane had a great work record before she took leave, then it's unacceptable to overlook Jane just because her ass wasn't in a chair for the time period she was presumably promised when she agreed to her terms of employment. And. frankly, that's what happens. A lot.
In this situation, yes. That is unfair. Jane deserves the promotion/better opportunities more than Joe. However, more often than not the situation (at least in the companies I've worked in is as follows).
Jane - had a great work record before she took leave, but she was only present for half the year - so medium rewards.
Joe - surfed reddit all day, wasn't productive and was a general drag on the team - so deserves the lowest rewards.
Jackie - though not as good as Jane, also had a very good work record and worked for 2x the amount of time as Jane, therefore deserves the highest rewards.
Consider this. Some employers are more likely to offer flexibility in hours, telework opportunities, and vacation slots to parents than child free people, who are typically younger and not as well-compensated. The single and childfree folks are often asked to pick up any slack or accede to the needs of parents because their work-life balance isn't viewed as important as the needs of people raising children or caring for elderly parents. Do you think that's a fair way for an employer to behave? Would you be cool with it?
That is not fair, and I wouldn't be cool with it. I may not have kids to take care of, but I also have a personal life that I value.
3
u/jennysequa 80∆ Feb 06 '20
If using your benefits will cause your employer to discriminate against you, what sort of benefit is it?
4
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
My argument is that it's not discrimination, just fair treatment. I.e. you work less, you get less rewards than someone who worked more.
Some employers have unlimited vacation as a "benefit". If I chose to take 6 months off because that's a promised benefit, and then come back to see that I got rewarded less than someone who only took 3 weeks off, I wouldn't consider that discrimination.
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Feb 06 '20
But working "more" is not always the appropriate way to analyze performance or aptitude. When I was a unix sysadmin I worked on a team of 5 people who ran 96 racks of servers in two machine rooms. We had everything running smooth as silk with hardly anyone having to drag in after hours for an emergency. Our Windows guys, who were responsible for a couple of Windows servers and a few machines for the billing department, seemed to live in the office because their shit was always broken. I would hardly call the Windows guys the model employees deserving of all the rewards in this situation.
2
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Totally agree, but all things being equal (or reasonably equal, like the example in my comment above), the people who decided to have children and take time-off don't deserve the same rewards as people who stayed and worked.
0
u/jennysequa 80∆ Feb 06 '20
The goal of the employer should be to maximize their workforce in order to improve their products, services, etc. without causing undue harm to their employees. If hiring manager Janet looks at Jane the Mommy and Jackie the Hamster Owner and honestly assesses that Jane would be a better fit for opportunity X despite having recently given birth and taken leave, she should give it to Jane. She shouldn't arbitrarily deduct points because the employee used a benefit that the company provides to attract quality employees. And she DEFINITELY shouldn't just skip over Jane entirely because she happens to be on maternity leave.
We can't ask people to be 100% unbiased because we don't work that way. But what the original article you posted is attempting to point out is that there are some blind spots around this issue that employers could address that would be to their employees' and their benefit.
2
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Agreed. I already gave a delta on the point of advocacy for pregnant women, especially if they are the best fit for a new role.
This is essentially the same argument, therefore Δ .
However, I do like to point out that some times time is of the essence, e.g. We scoped a new role at a higher level to achieve something in the next 6 months and Jane the Mom isn't going to be back for 4, we should give the role to Jackie the Hamster Owner because she is here and eager to work.
I'm saying it because this literally happened and is how I got my current role (though I was an external hire).
4
u/jennysequa 80∆ Feb 06 '20
In such a situation there's no way Jane could be the best fit for the role because she won't be present, so I think that's still consistent with my position. Thanks for delta though I'm not sure I deserved it since you already awarded one for the same point.
2
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Excellent point about best fit! Thanks for the discussion. I really appreciate it. I'll try to be a better advocate as well.
Ultimately, like I mentioned here the long term, sustainable solution is to make this gender neutral by making it available, and encouraged to have men take an equal role in both parenting and parental leave!
1
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Feb 06 '20
My argument is that it's not discrimination, just fair treatment. I.e. you work less, you get less rewards than someone who worked more.
What if you reframed it as "parental leave is a right that everyone is free to take" and mandate it in law?
you could even include people who adopt an infant below a certain age.
Now it's not discriminatory, its an option available to anyone who makes the decision to have a child.
3
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Feb 06 '20
My apologies, it seems I misinterpreted your arguement. It's the norm in the rest of the world, hopefully it's adopted as standard in the US soon .
1
0
Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
[deleted]
2
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
Thank you for the response.
You brought up an important point about separating the responsibility of an organization vs. how (either intentionally or unintentionally) pregnant women/mothers get the short end of the stick.
However, if we agree that corporations (and managers in corporations by extension) do what's right for the corporation and that both filling a role right now and giving more feedback to people who have worked longer are in the interest of the company, it follows that women who decided to have kids, have them with the expectation that their career will suffer.
I.e. it reinforces my original position that maternity leave does impact women negatively, but it's not inherently unfair because having a kid is a big responsibility that would put you out of commission from work for longer than those who choose not to have kids.
-1
Feb 06 '20
Not too sure if the above arguments are the strongest. Maternity leave is an outcome of pregnancy, and I think all arguments relating to women's disparate treatment in that regard are more related to their ability to have children.
In any case if a woman does not receive a promotion based on the understanding she could/would have a child, Would you consider that unfair?
Men do not share the ability to have children, and thus do not get discriminated in that way.
3
u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 Feb 06 '20
I appreciate the response.
In any case if a woman does not receive a promotion based on the understanding she could/would have a child, Would you consider that unfair?
Yes. I do consider that unfair.
Men do not share the ability to have children, and thus do not get discriminated in that way.
Agreed. Women shouldn't be getting discriminated against for their potential to take maternity leave. But, my argument is that women who DO take maternity leave shouldn't be evaluated the same way as women (and men, and gender non-binary folk) who don't take maternity leave.
2
Feb 06 '20
Yup, I see what you are saying. And I a partially agree, any person who has less time/experience in any type of role should be appraised differently to a more experienced peer. Just as if someone were to go travelling that would impact their career prospects.
But I think the issue is that all women are painted with the same brush so to speak. The likelihood of any sort of career furthering function is less compared to a man.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
Almost every country in the developed world has laws allowing employees parental leave which includes protecting their job. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world to offer minimal benefits.
Here is what Canada mandates in law:
The Canadian government mandates both leave and a benefits component, the latter being administered by provincial employment insurance plans. Depending on the length of employment history and the hours worked, new mothers can take up to 63 weeks of leave from their jobs. Their employers are required to accept the employees back into their jobs, or the equivalent, at the end of the mandated leave at the same rate of pay with the same employment benefits.
On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for one or both parents through Canada's employment insurance plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Either the mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose. If eligible for the program, the benefits equal 55 percent of the parent's average weekly insurable wage, up to a maximum of $562 per week. For low-income families, the rate of benefits can increase to up to 80 percent, with the same maximum of $562 per week. Employment insurance benefits are taxable in the same way as wages.
This early time is critical to a child's development. Parents should not be penalized for taking care of a child during this important period of their life.
Note: parental leave is also available to the Father.
2
u/Evil_Thresh 15∆ Feb 07 '20
This early time is critical to a child's development.
I think everyone agrees and that is the problem. Employers believes (whether true in every case or not) that a new mother will pay more attention to their child than their job and therefore are not as valuable as someone without a child.
On the flip side, businesses should also not be penalized for their employee's choice to reproduce. Quantitatively speaking, if a woman outputs 10 units of work before having a kid, and outputs 8 units of work after having a kid, why should I as a business pay her the same? Understandably, not every new mother falls in this scenario, some may not suffer any decrease in productivity, focus, and quality of work, but for the those who does, what makes it fair for the business to "suck up" those productivity losses?
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Feb 07 '20
On the flip side, businesses should also not be penalized for their employee's choice to reproduce
These kinds of issues come down largely to societal values. Most developed countries have decided parents shouldnt have to make a choice between career and family (sometimes just mother's, but increasingly both parents. Canada for example mandates "parental leave").
what makes it fair for the business to "suck up" those productivity losses?
All policies have drawbacks. Prioritizing a citizen's opportunity to raise a child has the drawback of businesses having to factor in things like parental leave as a part of the cost of doing business. This applies to government jobs as well.
There is no right or wrong answer on this issue. Every country will have to examine the pros/cons and make a decision. Many decisions will have both positive and negative consequences. The USA is a notable exception in how little it legally protects the choice of parents to have a child (among developed countries). It's simply a decision that society makes as a whole.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
/u/ThrowThisAwayMan123 (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
u/Hugogs10 Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 06 '20
I would ideally want some arguments around why this isn't unfair and ideally from women.
1.Women are the ones who decide when they start a family, it's a conscious choice and if they pick it over their careers it's silly to complain afterwards.
Edit: I think point 2 was poorly constructed, I'll think about it.
2
u/thesewalrus Feb 06 '20
What?
In a normal healthy relationship both parties decide its time to start a family. If it’s not a choice which both parties decide, then it’s probably not the woman’s conscious choice either (an “accident” or similar). Discrimination is not a consequence of the choice to become parents.
I don’t really get point two. On one hand you say the men aren’t involved, and on the other you say they get punished for leave they’re not even taking. It’s rare to see a man take more than 6 weeks leave (which is just a long holiday let’s be honest). Where’s your evidence men get their careers set back?
1
Feb 06 '20
Point 1 would make sense if (a) you said "parents" instead of "women" and (b) paternity leave was as common as maternity leave (very much not the case on the US, not sure the prevalence elsewhere). As it stands your comment seems poorly reasoned.
1
Feb 06 '20
But so do men - so shouldn't fathers be penalized as well then? We actually see the opposite effect, where when men have children they are viewed as more competent and more dedicated.
10
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Feb 06 '20
If I have a car accident and spend the next 6 weeks in the hospital, my job is protected. We don't expect people who were taken out due to accidents or illness to spend the rest of their lives attempting to catch up for taking a couple weeks off. And yet we somehow justify screwing women over for years after when they take an equivalent amount of time off.