Why are working woman still being pressured by businesses to choose between motherhood and their job?

Question

In the lawsuit, filed recently in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the company, Bloomberg L.P. engaged in a pattern of discrimination against pregnant women, including “decreasing their pay, demoting them, diminishing their job duties and excluding them from employment opportunities.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-pregnant.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191644343-ZN5zvqCacBzAk+t392W8zA

The lawsuit names three employees in particular who complained of unfair treatment, and says the discrimination began in 2002. During this time, the lawsuit says, a number of women who became pregnant or had just given birth were replaced by junior male employees, excluded from management meetings, and “subjected to stereotyping about their abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver responsibilities." HR disregarded their complaints.

When will stereotypes end about caregivers?

I agree parenting is a choice, but since the majority of Americans marry and have children, is it really logical to say that only women should bare the brunt of the job and career repercussions? Are you saying that Americans should stop having kids, since American companies bottom lines are being affected by a biological fact? Yes, having children is a choice, but it is the woman who is physically affected, not her male partner.

And if you're going to use the argument that parent's who are out of work for periods of time or to do caretaking affect a business's bottom line, then if you have any of these conditions below, then you also agree that your company can pay you less, demote you or fire you because you're out for short or long periods of time as well: Asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, allergies, chronic back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, or arthritis.

Answer 1

Conversely what happens when a male has physical problems that require frequent physician visits, time off work, etc?

When you have a valued employee in whom you've invested lots of bucks (as training for the job) why allow a temporary condition to hurt that persons career?

European companies are not allowed to discriminate in this manner.

We still need huge cultural change to happen before women will have equal treatment in all areas of life.

Answer 2

That could be a partial reason, but no matter what her circumstances were, murdering a child is inexcusable. Here's what should have happened: 1. These women obviously had some deep-seated psychological issues. Even if you hate having a family, killing them wouldn't be something a reasonable person would do. They should have sought help. (In Yates' case, as you detailed above, her husband would be partially to blame for this as well.) 2. The husbands should have learned about these women's attitudes toward having children before they even brought it up. They could have easily found women who did want to have kids. Also, the women could have just walked away from the pressure. Everyone is to blame, and everyone suffers. EDIT: I know you do. But some of the people here don't understand that feminists feel the same way about this as they do.

Answer 3

It amazes me that people can't figure out that the choice to continue the human race is NOT the same as the choice to train for a marathon or get cosmetic surgery. What mothers are doing will create benefits for all of the society.

If "breeders" shouldn't get any "special allowances" like medical leave, then perhaps those folks arguing for that can just forget about getting any social security - which is paid for by a younger generation's children. Perhaps they would be content to go to a nursing home someday staffed by nobody. They'll have to make do with going to a doctor that is the same age as them, for the rest of their lives. No fair "using" someone else's kids to benefit themselves while refusing to acknowledge that contribution.

Having children is not just a "personal choice", it is ESSENTIAL to our economy. Because of that, our government would be wise to step in and protect the rights of those people performing such a valuable service to our country. These companies are not only behaving in an illegal manner, they are part of a wider problem of people thinking that NO allowances should ever be made for the people raising the next generation, which shows a lack of understanding about how our economy works.

Answer 4

I'm going to go off-topic a bit here but I also wonder why these companies are eager to get rid of older workers and don't want to hire new ones. I'm largely past child bearing age now. There is very little chance I will ever go on maternity leave or take time off from work to take my children to doctor's visits. So why are I considered "too old"? The reason I'm bringing this up is that women are encouraged to drop out of the workplace to care for young children with the assurance that they can pick up and start back up where they left off. The reality is often quite different. For one thing, women who haven't worked in years often have outdated or obsolete job skills. Since they weren't working all those years, that a lot of time lost for potential pay raises and promotions. Also, many employers seem to think such women aren't as committed to their careers as those who stayed so they are less likely to hire them. Either way, they're damed if they do and damned if they don't.

Answer 5

The 'bottom line' profit. They are running a business and the expectation is that their employees will be loyal and work on a consistent basis with only the 'acceptable' time off.
Women who choose to have a baby in the middle of all this is inconsiderate to the organisation etc.

The end of stereo types is reliant on the whole of society accepting a new order of norms and mores. So whilst business is predominantly run by males for profit we will not see real change and stereo typing will continue to thrive.

Good on those who use legislation and company policies to keep these injustices in the public eye.

Answer 6

Allegra illustrates the charge that (some) women want special rights, not equal rights.

To answer your question: for the same reason that men are still being pressured by businesses to choose between fatherhood and their job. Companies consider themselves entitled to make more and more demands of their employees and labor markets give them the ability to do so.



EDIT

Looking at other posts, I suspect Allegra may be a troll and not necessarily a woman. nevermind.

Answer 7

Between doctor visits, unexpected hospital stays, and call ins, I can see why companies are hesitant. I think that people should be treated fairly but if breeding effects your work performance, demotion and decreases in pay should occur. There should be no special treatment for mothers. Breeding is a choice.

Answer 8

Between doctor visits, unexpected hospital stays, and call ins, I can see why companies are hesitant. I think that people should be treated fairly but if breeding effects your work performance, demotion and decreases in pay should occur. There should be no special treatment for mothers. Breeding is a choice.

Answer 9

Motherhood take time. Companies need good and dedicated employees to do the job.

Don't expect to have equal pay when you're taking time off, and not working as hard as Men. The shouldn't be any kind of special treatments.