Feminist complains about women getting workplace entitlements

[Emily Lake]

We are a society that pretends to honor the family and home life, but in reality we are a society infected with mortgages and rents of all types that require too much income. This makes employment for women in many cases mandatory if they do not want to appear on the welfare roles. Freezing eggs is not the answer. They should have more generous forms of leave for women to raise their children, not just have them.

You know that some women actually want to have a career of their own right, and aren't just forced into it because they can't stay home and raise babies?

- - - Updated - - -

\The truth is that it doesn't affect a man's performance in the same way. This is a cultural and societal gender role that hasn't shifted yet... if it ever does. Women are still the primary caregivers for children. When both parents work, it still ends up being the female that puts the children's needs before the needs of her career, while the man puts the needs of the career first. If the child is sick, it nearly always ends up being the mother who stays home. If there's a project that needs to be completed, and a kid that needs to be picked up, the mother will usually end up choosing the child where the father will choose the project. Perhaps some day that will change, but right now that's how it is.

That may be generally true, but it is not specifically true. So, it's not the company's place to decide the particular roles in their employees' marriages, but by not offering it to the male employees they are not allowing for the possible, but probably rare as you point out, case of a heavily involved father, whose work performance will be affected by having a child at home.

Except that men continue to produce sperm indefinitely; women have a limited supply of eggs. There's no need to freeze sperm.

 

[Metaphor]

Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.

Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).

Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.

No, I don't think so. I don't approve of sex tourism, but if the trip was sold as beneficial in some way, I don't see the problem. I think 6 weeks is too long, mind.

Then again, my company already pays for people to take leave to language courses, train for marathons, play cricket against other companies, attend marketing events to promote themselves, publish magazine articles and so on. This means less money for me, since I don't do any of these activities, but the workplace environment is the better for it, and if there was a sudden need for me to do something, I know the request would be taken seriously.

At the more extreme end, some companies require people to spend a certain % of their work time on their own personal projects. It helps creativity.

My workplace has study leave available also. It's both a fringe benefit to the employee and a benefit to the employer (the organisation will have more highly educated people, but even though the person wanting the leave is supposed to demonstrate how the courses they're taking are of benefit to the organisation, course choices are generally rubber-stamped.)

If once every three years, people accumulated paid leave of x duration to do with what they wanted (including parental leave or cashing it in), there'd be no unfairness in the leave. But paid parental leave is unfair. You could take it zero times, you could take it once, you could take it five times. You could take it after having worked for a decade or having worked for six months. (People might suggest that employers can put a 'minimum employment time' before they qualify for paid parental leave, but that just underscores that it is unfair, and requiring a minimum attempts to partially compensate for that).

 

[ksen]

The United States, by and large, doesn't have paid parental leave so it's kind of hard for us here to get too excited about it.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't agree with that assessment, at least not without some citation. My personal experience is anecdotal, of course, but all of the companies I've worked for that provided maternity leave also provided paternity leave. This is true for the companies my spouse has worked for, as well as our best friends, my parents, and several other close friends. I know of one person whose company offers different amounts of leave for men than for women. I don't know of anyone with a full-time position whose company does not offer any paternity leave at all.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Except that men continue to produce sperm indefinitely; women have a limited supply of eggs. There's no need to freeze sperm.

I wasn't suggesting that.

I was suggesting that they pay for a male employee's wife's eggs to be frozen. If he and his wife are going to put off having children because having a child will affect his work performance now, then they have the same need as a female employee. If, however, having a child has no impact on the father's work performance (which is what is being implied) then the male employee doesn't need the benefit.

 

[Emily Lake]

Except that men continue to produce sperm indefinitely; women have a limited supply of eggs. There's no need to freeze sperm.

I wasn't suggesting that.

I was suggesting that they pay for a male employee's wife's eggs to be frozen. If he and his wife are going to put off having children because having a child will affect his work performance now, then they have the same need as a female employee. If, however, having a child has no impact on the father's work performance (which is what is being implied) then the male employee doesn't need the benefit.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I believe I already addressed this - having a child currently doesn't affect a man's career in nearly the same way it affects a woman's. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

I think there's also a degree of benefit to the company as well. If they were freezing a male employee's female spouse's eggs, then they'd be creating a benefit for her employer - allowing her to choose to work during her peak employment rise years rather than choosing to have a child. It would benefit the female spouse (not the male employee) and her employer (not them).

 

[hinduwoman]

The policy might end up by creating even more pressure on women to work than have children; but overall it seems to me that the companies are listening to career-oriented women's concerns. It does allow women to have more control over their reproduction: no one is stopping women from having babies when they like.

 

[Togo]

If once every three years, people accumulated paid leave of x duration to do with what they wanted (including parental leave or cashing it in), there'd be no unfairness in the leave.

I know companies that do just that.

But paid parental leave is unfair. You could take it zero times, you could take it once, you could take it five times. You could take it after having worked for a decade or having worked for six months. (People might suggest that employers can put a 'minimum employment time' before they qualify for paid parental leave, but that just underscores that it is unfair, and requiring a minimum attempts to partially compensate for that).

Well, it's unequal. It rewards people who take time off for children, and punishes those who don't. Which is exactly what is intended.

I don't have children, and I'm in favour of it.

It's just another form of wealth redistribution, along with tax rates that vary by income, tax deductions for charitable giving or capital investment, pensions, setting interest rates at a particular level, and so on. We channel more wealth towards ensuring that those who have children can spend some time enabling that process. Children aren't obviously a bad thing to invest in, so why is it such an issue?

If you want wealth distribution to be fair, then there are plenty of other places to start, such as setting all income to be the same regardless of profession or ability. In general, though, people don't want wealth distribution to be fair -they want it to incentivise certain behaviour.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I believe I already addressed this - having a child currently doesn't affect a man's career in nearly the same way it affects a woman's. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

While that *may* be true on average, that's not true for every couple. What if a man *wants* to do his fair share of child raising and housekeeping? What if his wife has a job, too? The company is deciding for the couple what the distribution of the chores in their house should be compared to another couple for whom the women is working for the company. They're saying that he can have children, but he'd better not take away any time from his work raising the child or taking care of the house. I guess that's what wives are for -- or at least ones that don't work for Apple.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I believe I already addressed this - having a child currently doesn't affect a man's career in nearly the same way it affects a woman's. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

While that *may* be true on average, that's not true for every couple. What if a man *wants* to do his fair share of child raising and housekeeping? What if his wife has a job, too? The company is deciding for the couple what the distribution of the chores in their house should be compared to another couple for whom the women is working for the company. They're saying that he can have children, but he'd better not take away any time from his work raising the child or taking care of the house. I guess that's what wives are for -- or at least ones that don't work for Apple.

How on earth is the company saying that? I don't think they're saying that at all, so much as they're recognizing that women tend to make that choice, and they're providing an alternative for them. I don't think they're going to stand in the way of a man making that choice on his own - but if he does, he faces the same choice between career and family that women face now. He faces the same conundrum between placing his children first, and sacrificing career growth... Or placing career first and sacrificing time with his children. By all means, if a man wishes to place his children first I encourage him to do so. But culturally this is not usually the case.

Are you actually berating Apple for not being as crappy as other companies? Shouldn't you be berating other companies for not providing an alternative option like Apple does?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are you actually berating Apple for not being as crappy as other companies? Shouldn't you be berating other companies for not providing an alternative option like Apple does?

It's simply a matter of fairness. They are offering a benefit to the women in the company that they are not offering to the men; i.e., a financial incentive to postpone having a child. And they are doing this on the assumption that men will not be taking time to take care of their family's needs (other than earn money by working at their company).

 

[Emily Lake]

Are you actually berating Apple for not being as crappy as other companies? Shouldn't you be berating other companies for not providing an alternative option like Apple does?

It's simply a matter of fairness. They are offering a benefit to the women in the company that they are not offering to the men; i.e., a financial incentive to postpone having a child. And they are doing this on the assumption that men will not be taking time to take care of their family's needs (other than earn money by working at their company).

Yes, that last sentence is probably true.

 

[ksen]

Employees should just let the au pairs and nannys take care of the kids like normal people do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Employees should just let the au pairs and nannys take care of the kids like normal people do.

Seriously. It does seem like more of an under-butler problem than something the heads of the household needs to concern themselves with.

 

[ksen]

Yeah. Once my kids were born they were whisked away by the help and I only had to see them on thanksgiving and christmas.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah. Once my kids were born they were whisked away by the help and I only had to see them on thanksgiving and christmas.

Well, I'm sure that you didn't have to, but it was most generous of you to deign to acknowledge them during a couple of major holidays.

 

[thebeave]

Maybe to make it fair and equal between the men and women, they could offer a benefit for the men as well (worth $20,000) Like, a couple of jet skis, or a Dodge Viper or a booze cruise around the Mediterranean with a bunch of porn stars. I'd have no problem with that.

 

[Toni]

The United States, by and large, doesn't have paid parental leave so it's kind of hard for us here to get too excited about it.

The U.S. by and large doesn't have paid maternity leave, either. Actually, only about 12% get paid parental leave at all....

 

[Toni]

Are you actually berating Apple for not being as crappy as other companies? Shouldn't you be berating other companies for not providing an alternative option like Apple does?

It's simply a matter of fairness. They are offering a benefit to the women in the company that they are not offering to the men; i.e., a financial incentive to postpone having a child. And they are doing this on the assumption that men will not be taking time to take care of their family's needs (other than earn money by working at their company).

Right. And this 'benefit' highlights the differing expectations of employees as well. Women are assumed to wish to a)become parents and b)take time off for parental leave. No such assumptions are made of men. It is hard to believe that this mindset does not lead to unequal treatment of employees based upon assumptions about their reproductive strategies and career plans.

 

[Togo]

It's simply a matter of fairness. They are offering a benefit to the women in the company that they are not offering to the men; i.e., a financial incentive to postpone having a child. And they are doing this on the assumption that men will not be taking time to take care of their family's needs (other than earn money by working at their company).

Right. And this 'benefit' highlights the differing expectations of employees as well. Women are assumed to wish to a)become parents and b)take time off for parental leave. No such assumptions are made of men. It is hard to believe that this mindset does not lead to unequal treatment of employees based upon assumptions about their reproductive strategies and career plans.

My wife is considering taking a career break to have children. We tried to work out what would happen if we took equal time off for childcare, and it turns out we can't afford it. Despite earning roughly the same money, she gets 6 months maternity leave, and I get 2-3 weeks, which I have to negotiate for. She's going to have to be forced into the childcare role, and me into the absent breadwinner role, regardless of our own desires in the matter.