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

[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

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Also this is somewhat more left wing earth mother-ish, but if a woman is having a baby, perhaps she should be supported. If she temporarily is unable to give as much to her career, so what? She's bringing a child into the world. Many companies have CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) policies. Perhaps emplying mothers should come under this heading and companies, as part of society as whole, should accept that they are givign a little towards the life of a new person. If she can't get a job, she'll only have to claim beneftis and in fact be a much bigger cost on society through taxes.

Lxxx

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Apologies for typing errors x

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

That's actually one of the arguments I'd use if I was on the other side of this debate.

It's a bit of a band-aid, though. What we really need is more support for mothers as people fulfilling a valid role in themselves - tacking this onto employment law is an odd fit. F'r example, it takes no account of the ability of the employer to afford this CSR liability, nor provides any support toward that. Some companies are very small and on a very tight budget, wheras others are huge and highly profitable - seems odd to assign this responsibility almost arbitrarily.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Yup, there's a certain level of "just don't go there, it'll get complicated and horrible" that is certainly applicable to this argument - by which I mean that it's reasonable to say "look, don't ask this at interview, there's no way it will end well, and it's kinda government's responsibility to avoid lots of civil lawsuits if possible."

Issue 2's a problem too. Neither of them are knock-out counters to my devil's advocate argument, but they do present some pretty big and reasonable problems.

[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*

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I have a *lot* of counts against me (gaijin, and female, and could get pregnant, and need to have company support work visa, and not sufficient business Japanese - I was told to go learn Japanese, so I did, and now I get asked why I have this big gap in my CV because going to a juku to cram Japanese doesn't count, and I'm only applying to companies where the operating language is English anyway). But I was actually extremely good at what I did before I came to Japan, and my CV I know is really really strong.

Gah. It's very frustrating.

You might find this article interesting:
http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/638/feature.asp