I'm disgusted

[andrewducker]

If you are a woman, know one, or are related to one then you'll almost certainly be as sickened as I am by this article on discrimination against pregnant mothers.  But not terribly surprised by most of it.  The bit that gets to me is that an advisor to the government is saying it, and nobody is speaking out to contradict him...

Comments

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

OK, devil's advocate moment here, and please, please believe I'm not advocating for discrimination against mothers or pregnant women:

Why not?

We don't have a choice about our sex, fair enough. We also don't have a choice about our mathmatical ability, but I'm allowed to explicitly discriminate on that basis - if I'm hiring someone for a position requiring mathematical knowledge, I can totally say "you just don't have the maths aptitude. Sorry. Goodbye."

I can discriminate based on social aptitude (and we don't have a lot of choice about that either). I can discriminate based on random chance ("Oh, you worked with Bob? Cool. You're hired.").

What's the key difference here?

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

In your "acceptable" disciminations about say, mathematical ability, or social aptitude, or random chance, these can probably apply to anyone - male or female.

With pregnancy, this is a female-only thing. That alone makes the playing field instantly unbalanced. Since that's the starting point, it makes every other comparison moot, with the sole exception that you can choose to look at every male candidate from age 16 to 99 as having the potential to become a father to a child at any point. Most employers don't do that, though, from what I can gather.

The discrimination is based on a perception of biology. It strips away the possibility that some women *can* work through their pregnancies, some will want to come back to work asap, etc. It discriminates against all women of child-bearing age, even if they have no intention (or even the ability - don't forget many are infertile) to have a child, simply because they are the part of the species that is supposed to handle that particular job.

In short, it's wrong. It's damaging to society as a whole. I honestly believe there are more benefits to an employer who is willing to work with female employees around the issue of childcare and pregnancy than there are disincentives.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Well, hence my earlier question about whether there are any hard facts on how pregnancy or the possibility therof affects work output. It's kinda seeming like there isn't any evidence that it *doesn't*, which would in turn, given that the intuitive belief is "yep, that's going to have an effect", makes employers' concerns seem more reasonable.

Having said that, autopope's comments below are very sensible.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I think that the wider picture of health concerns in employing someone would suffice as a general comparison.

Can you assume that every person suitable to be hired won't at some point fall ill and need significant time off work? Can you assume that every person won't require leave for family or compassionate reasons, or that their situation won't change where something happens that requires more flexibility with their position?

It's tempting to believe that in an interview you can gauge all these things and come out with an employee that you can depend on, rain or shine, male or female. I just think that's the wrong attitude to take with the job interview process. Shit happens, people change, etc. To assume that a woman is going to be an unstable employee because she may become pregnant or may have a child is to undermine everything else that the woman may bring to the table: experience, hard work, loyalty, etc.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

Doing a quick search on scholar.google.com yielded the following:

Hal G. Gueutal, Joan Luciano and Carole A. Michaels. 1995. "Pregnancy in the workplace: Does pregnancy affect performance appraisal ratings?" Journal of Business and Psychology, Volume 10, Number 2, December, 1995, 155-167.

Abstract:
Archival data were collected to examine bias effects in performance evaluation related to employee pregnancy. Prior survey research has suggested that many supervisors and co-workers hold negative views of pregnant employees. Performance appraisal ratings were collected before, during, and after pregnancy for employees taking maternity leave over a four year time frame. In addition, data was also collected from randomly selected control subjects, which were matched on job title and observation period. Contrary to expectations, performance appraisal ratings were found to increase during pregnancy when compared to before ratings and control group ratings. Potential explanations as well as suggestions for further research are discussed.

From page 164 of the study: "The results of this study are surprising in light of previous laboratory studies and field surveys. A great deal of discussion and concern has focused on the various ways women are discriminated against in the workplace. Indeed, the "glass ceiling" is sometimes cited as resulting from the discontinuity in work history associated with child bearing.

Since career progression is often based on performance evaluation, it is likely that discrimination would be found in these ratings. These data suggest otherwise. Both the within-subjects and between-subjects test were consistent and showed no discrimination against pregnant women. These results indicate that, at least in this organization, (1) pregnant
employees were rated as significantly better performers than non-pregnant employees, and (2) pregnant employees are rated higher when compared to their immediate past performance evaluation. This suggests that pregnancy and child bearing may not be a career negative.

When comparing the before pregnancy with the after pregnancy ratings, while they were not significantly different, the observed difference was in the direction of more positive ratings. However, it is possible that the after pregnancy rating is more positive than the before pregnancy rating because in some cases, it may have reflected both performance during
and after pregnancy. That is, there may have been a "spill-over" effect in the after ratings, as the supervisor might be reflecting on performance during pregnancy in making ratings of an employee recently returned from maternity leave. In this organization at least, child bearing does not appear to be negatively affect performance appraisal ratings. This finding does not appear to support the argument that maternity leave and child bearing have immediate negative career impacts."

(I'll continue in another post due to word count limit)

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Let's look at the other things you're not allowed to discriminate on:

* Race. ("Sorry, I don't hire darkies, it'd annoy the other employees.")

* Age. ("30 is too old to be a programmer -- you can't possibly be flexible enough.")

* Religion. ("You're not Christian enough for me.")

* Sexual orientation. ("BDSM is against God's will. If I hired you I'd be subsidizing sin.")

...

In all of these cases, the reason for the ban is simple social engineering; it is deemed that people in a position of power will abuse it to the detriment of out-groups they feel they can discriminate against. It is also deemed to be a social ill to permit arbitrary exclusion on these bases.

The reason for including women of childbearing age in this basket of out-groups is that they are discriminated against; pregnancy/child rearing was frequently used as an excuse for firing them before they could acquire seniority, and still is. (In Japan, until relatively recently, respectable and large companies often fired their female employees when they married, "so they could devote themselves to their home life"). Seniority tends to accrue with age, but women have a relatively limited window of years in which to raise a family. By excluding women of child-bearing age from the workplace, women are prevented women rising to positions of significant social, corporate, or political status.

[andrewducker]

In Japan, until relatively recently, respectable and large companies often fired their female employees when they married
Also the case in Ireland thirty years ago - it was assumed that my mother would stop working when she got married. So she took her ring off every day on the way to work...

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

That makes sense, yep. Good explanation!

I'm really trying to come up with a crowbar to stick into the argument somewhere, but it does make sense.

Having said that - I thought the argument was about discriminating against people who are not just female, but who are both female and explicitly planning to have children soon? That's a different social group with voluntary inclusion, and not a significantly more out-group than women as a whole.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

OK sorry if this has ben covered, have tried to read all the other comments, but:

"Well, why shouldn't he be allowed to discriminate against a women who is definitely planning to become pregnant?"

Issue 1
* Employer asks potential employee whether she plans to become pregnant. Said potential knows that to say yes would be stupid, because the only person who would ask that would be someone who would discrimate on those grounds. So she says no.
*Firstly, this therefore makes it a stupid question to ask because no-one is going to say yes.
* Secondly: Employee becomes pregnant. Does this negate her contract because she lied at interview? Employer would have to prove she lied as opposed to changing her mind, but if he could do so he could fire her.

Issue 2
* A potential employee is open about the fact she plans to have children. On that basis, she finds it hard to get work of the standard/pay/hours she would otherwise get. She goes on to discover that she can't have children, or has difficulty doing so (deciding you want a child does not mean you will instantly become pregnant). It takes her several years to finally become a mother. In the intermittent time, she hs lost out on furthering her career and salary, and the workforce has lost out on what she could give.

That's what I think.

Lxxx

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Ok, I thought of one.

Here's another out-group: stupid people. People who don't have the intellectual capacity that others may have.

They're definitely a vulnerable minority.

Why are we, then, allowed to discriminate against them by administering IQ tests, Google-esque questions, and so on?

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

Because stupidity affects competence. Race, religion, gender, age (with some exceptions, though even in physically demanding professions it's often the case that experience compensates for physical deterioration), and sexual orientation don't.

And while it's possible to make the argument that becoming pregnant and taking time off to care for a new baby affect competence, there's no getting around the fact that in a fair society, that burden (excepting the actual biological business of pregnancy) would be shared fairly between both parents. Someone has to take care of that baby - it's in all our interests, in fact, that it be well cared for - and it's only because our society still places the bulk of that burden of care on the mother's shoulders that her choice to have a baby affects her ability to work as dramatically as it does. It's wrong to penalize her yet again by discriminating against her when she interviews for a job.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Interestingly it's actually very, very difficult, having hired someone, to fire them for stupidity.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

In Japan, it's still alive and well. I know from bitter bitter experience (30 interviews, and counting) that people don't hire 30 something married women in Japan. Full stop.

It's very annoying (I had a 100% interview success rate before I lived in Tokyo) and even more when women who have transferred in with companies start claiming that no such prejudice exists.

Companies here love to interview me, when they see my CV and don't know my gender. When they meet me? (and I can't lie about being married, I have a dependent visa) Not so much.

With my married female Japanese friends, only one works. She is fully aware of what an outlier she is, suffers lots of prejudice because of it, and is basically only doing it because the family financial situation demands it. If they were richer, she'd give up in a heartbeat, to get away from the censure.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

Christ. That just. Christ. *gobsmacked*

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Note to people coming here from Andrew's LJ post - please read my comment above too (outwith this threaded view).

[communicator.livejournal.com]

The key difference is whether you can do the job or not. It's to the detriment of society and the economy if employers hire on the basis of characteristics which have nothing to do with whether you can do the job.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Hence my question above about hard stats on the effects of pregnancy and motherhood on job performance.

Intuition says that a mood-altering, tiring hormonal and physical change, followed by a period of time off work, followed by considerably increased non-work commitments, would have an effect on job performance.

Hence, again, why should employers be forbidden to discriminate on that basis?

Please note - I'm not actively arguing for this. I'm now mildly terrified of being pigeonholed as some anti-women's rights idiot. My intuition is that it's probably correct to not allow employers to ask about pregnancy plans. I just see some other-side arguments on that front, and don't trust unprobed intuitive answers.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

No, no. I think sometimes it's useful to face the issue full on. You mention stats. Let me give you an example, to explain why I don't think that is the right approach. I have a friend (female) who works for Wisden, the cricket publication. Now stats would tell you (correctly) that very few women know much about cricket. But my friend is at the highest level of expertise. Therefore it doesn't make sense to appoint on the basis of stats (this is leaving aside the entire issue of whether the stats are accurate, whether they reflect mutable or immutable characteristics etc.) It only takes on exception to render the stats useless as a tool for hiring.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

There's another issue which I think is important. Capitalism isn't very good at directing resources at crucial social functions. Raising children is crucial to the survival of society, and yet there is no reliable mechanism in modern capitalism for ensuring resources are directed to it. I think the stresses and strains shouldered by women are caused by this deep societal flaw, and the legislation you describe is an attempt to deal inadequately with this strain.

I personally was in a lot of pain for a long time after child birth and I didn't want to go out to work. However I had to in order to live. I did a damn good job, so the disadvantage was all to me not my employer, but in a more rational economy there would be space for people to recuperate from major medical trauma.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

The very fact that you're equating "being of childbearing age and female" with "being stupid" is problematic.

Okay, you say you're looking for hard data: why? As far as I can tell, because the question is asked. And the question is asked because discrimination exists. It's only valid to argue that you ought to have data on X thing if you also have data on every other possible thing, particularly if X is something only affecting a group who are already subject to systematic discrimination. And I would argue that data on every possible thing that might affect job performance isn't available, and that it's systematically more likely that questions will be asked and data acquired about groups subject to discrimination. Very little is published on the causes of heterosexuality, for example.

It also occurs to me that you ought to be able to ask if a potential employee has a terminally ill relative. My mother's death definitely had an impact on my ability to work; I'm less sure whether my pregnancies did.

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure of the research - though I'm sure it exists - but it seems likely that if pregnancy *does* affect job performance, it's not going to affect every woman's performance in the same way. Discriminating on that basis means discriminating on assumptions that probably aren't true. Judging each case on an individual basis, where the actual employee's productivity and performance are evaluated? Seems okay to me. But saying it's the same across the board and not allowing a woman to prove that she is capable of the job? That should be forbidden.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

I got the email response at lunchtime and have been pondering a response while at work. Now it seems every bugger 'an their dog has jumped in in front of me!

But anyway, I still have something to add.

Yes, we discriminate all the time - it's an essential human behaviour. When it comes to your taste in flavour of cream cake, your discrimination is your own affair. But when it comes to how people in society are treated, we require discrimination to only be allowed on reasonable and fair grounds.

So for example, racial discrimination isn't just wrong because it's seated in hate, it's also wrong because it is not reasonable or fair to discriminate on grounds of skin colour, irrespective of statistics. To expand on this, it's not reasonable to discriminate by statistical generalisations to predict future behaviour of an individual. Even if there were a statistic that suggested black men were more likely to be criminal, you cannot use such data to predict the future behaviour of the black man applying to be a police officer. It's not a valid deduction (literally) to go from such generalisations to the individual.

So when you're interviewing a woman and a man for the same position, qualifications, past experience and how they present themselves are valid grounds to discriminate between them. It's not valid to favour the man on the assumption that he will perform better than the woman would while she is pregnant or being a mother. It's not a valid assumption.

And then there are all the other reasons you've been bombarded with also...

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

1) I'm specifically not talking about discrimination on grounds of sex, and I'm not sure how many people seem to have gotten the idea that's what this discussion is about. I'm talking, specifically, about whether hiring decisions should be allowed to be made and questions should be allowed to be asked about future plans to have children. I'm perfectly happy to allow that as a gender-neutral thing - ie, let's include men who are intending to have kids too.

2) Ok, so, for example, is it not reasonable or fair to increase health insurance premiums for smokers, for example? Or car insurance premiums for people under 25 or with less than a year's driving experience? In both cases these premium increases are based on "statistical generalisations", as you put it - there's no way to show that an individual driver will definitely crash just because he's young and inexperienced.

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

We don't have a choice about our sex

Oh yeah?

Which is to say most choices in that kind of situation are arbitary.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

In this case, not so much, unless medical science is a lot more advanced than I thought. To the best of my knowledge, there's no medical procedure that can allow a currently biologically male person to get pregnant.

I'm not incredibly up with TG terminology, but I deliberately used "sex" not "gender" there.