Workplaces asking women about babymplans

[mom2rtk]

And women don't need a year to do so.

Nobody I know is taking even close to a year off.

 

[MamaBelle4]

And thats the problem, her answer is thst it isnt anyones business.

I don't think it IS anyone's business.

I understand your concern, certainly, but for centuries women have been running things in certain cultures. A lot of Native American tribes were matriarchal. There have been queens and empresses and tsarinas who have successfully ruled while rearing children. Catherine the Great of Russia comes to mind. She conceived her child in an affair, distracted her husband while she was giving birth after hiding the entire pregnancy, and then met him for coffee while still hemorrhaging. Women are tough nuts and have been since the dawn of time.

Chances are, if that woman were elected and decided to get pregnant, she would handle it in a way that wouldn't effect the ruling of the land at all.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Because men don't have to recover medically from childbirth?

That's not a year off though. The time to medically recover from childbirth isn't really a legitimate reason to ask the question. This is especially true if other things that would require time to recover medically are not a concern or being asked about.

 

[Hikergirl]

The OP mentioned something about taking a year off in one of her posts, so I assumed that maternity leave in NZ was one year. Turns out that isn't true, that is considered extended leave.
I think that standard maternity leave is 8 weeks paid. In the grand scheme of things, being out for 8 weeks, even as an elected public official is not really a big deal.
I do think if one plans on taking an extended leave then an employer, or the voting public should know, but for just 8 weeks of maternity leave, its not really an issue.

 

[Aliceacc]

When I had my mastectomy, I took 6 weeks medical leave.

Then I had several surgeries for reconstruction. I tried, hard, to schedule them around school vacations, so that I missed a day here and a day here.

I was incredibly lucky with radiation-- my school let me leave a few minutes early each day to make my appointment, the last of the day.

When I had my daughter, I was back in less than 6 weeks. No additional time off needed.

So why isn't cancer screening a part of the questioning?

Last year, my husband missed school for over2 months-- his diabetes landed him in ICU for 11 days, and it was touch and go.

Why isn't diabetes part of the questioning?

A number of friends lost their homes in Sandy. They all missed different combinations of school time as they sorted out their personal issues.

Why isn't proximity of your home to water part of the questioning?

 

[NHdisneylover]

Because fatherhood doesn't result in 6-12 weeks off from work.

My husband has spent far more days laid up with back problems than the total I spent recovering from the two times I gave birth.

It's just about always possible that a medical issue might come up that requires someone to take some time fully or at least partially off from work. IN any line of job (including politics). Choosing to single out this one particular type of issue and make a big deal about the potential of it for female applicants, well, that says a lot about our culture I guess--none of it good.

Also, the article I read on BBC talked about how a former female PM of Australia who is childess was often called things like "cold hearted" bECUASE she did not have children---seems women simply cannot win with this stuff, meanwhile no one seems to care much about how fatherhood does or does not affect a man's work, or reflect on his perosnality otherwise.

 

[sam_gordon]

My husband has spent far more days laid up with back problems than the total I spent recovering from the two times I gave birth.

It's just about always possible that a medical issue might come up that requires someone to take some time fully or at least partially off from work. IN any line of job (including politics). Choosing to single out this one particular type of issue and make a big deal about the potential of it for female applicants, well, that says a lot about our culture I guess--none of it good.

Also, the article I read on BBC talked about how a former female PM of Australia who is childess was often called things like "cold hearted" bECUASE she did not have children---seems women simply cannot win with this stuff, meanwhile no one seems to care much about how fatherhood does or does not affect a man's work, or reflect on his perosnality otherwise.

Keep in mind, I was simply answering the question why fatherhood is considered differently than motherhood. You (and others) are correct, there are plenty of issues that can come up that would require an extended leave from work. My main response to this thread was for the poster who said constituents are entitled to know about motherhood plans of candidates but employers aren't. IMO, if you're ok with one, you should be ok with both.

 

[MamaBelle4]

IMO, if you're ok with one, you should be ok with both

I agree with this.

There are systems in place for temporary acting figures, like when President Woodrow Wilson had a series of strokes (bonus points for everyone who knows who acted in his behalf, though it was definitely unbeknownst to the public).

The nation has survived worse, I'm sure, than 6-8 weeks of maternity leave. The US has endured entire 4 year terms riddled with corruption, deception and incompetency. 8 weeks surely pales in comparison to that!

 

[rastahomie]

It's highly unlikely that a woman of child-bearing age will ever be elected POTUS. The Constitution says you have to be at least 35; the youngest ever elected was JFK, who was 43. Most women are past their child-bearing years by that time. Hillary Clinton was comfortably in her 60's when she ran.

I imagine that the first female POTUS will be at least 60 when she's elected. Her possible maternity won't be an issue.

 

[Hikergirl]

I think your employer should know about any planned extended leave you are expecting to take. I think a general question from an employer about your plans to do that is fair.
Your time off doesn't always just effect you. My friend is going through this at work right now. She has a co-worker who is pregnant, so obviously they all know that she will be taking her maternity leave so they were able to plan around her being gone for that time.
An unexpected problem as put her on bed rest and my friend and her other co-workers are scrambling to cover that woman's work. My friend is going through her own medical issue and has had to put off her own appointments that were scheduled during her time off in order to be at work so the pregnant co-workers responsibilities could be covered. This was unplanned, so not much can be done, however if you know you will be taking extended time off, there is nothing wrong with an employer wanting to know that beforehand for the sake of themselves and other co-workers.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I agree with this.

There are systems in place for temporary acting figures, like when President Woodrow Wilson had a series of strokes (bonus points for everyone who knows who acted in his behalf, though it was definitely unbeknownst to the public).

The nation has survived worse, I'm sure, than 6-8 weeks of maternity leave. The US has endured entire 4 year terms riddled with corruption, deception and incompetency. 8 weeks surely pales in comparison to that!

Drunk History did a segment on the Wilson thing.

 

[MamaBelle4]

Drunk History did a segment on the Wilson thing.

Did they really?! That's awesome!

 

[MamaBelle4]

I think your employer should know about any planned extended leave you are expecting to take. I think a general question from an employer about your plans to do that is fair.

Yeah, but that really applies to the first year of employment. No one can say, well, I'm going to get pregnant on January 1st, so I will need leave starting October 1st.

She has no idea if she will conceive right away or not. It isn't like a vacation where you have a set of dates already selected.

 

[Hikergirl]

Yeah, but that really applies to the first year of employment. No one can say, well, I'm going to get pregnant on January 1st, so I will need leave starting October 1st.

She has no idea if she will conceive right away or not. It isn't like a vacation where you have a set of dates already selected.

I agree, and an employer has 9 months to prepare for that time off when an employee does become pregnant.
My comment wasn't specifically about maternity leave though, it was an answer to the pp who listed things like surgery, chemo, hurt back etc. If you know you are going to have surgery and chemo and will require an extended leave your employer should be informed and it shouldn't be wrong for them to ask IMO.
If you are being interviewed I still think a prospective employer has the right to know and ask.

 

[sunshinehighway]

It's highly unlikely that a woman of child-bearing age will ever be elected POTUS. The Constitution says you have to be at least 35; the youngest ever elected was JFK, who was 43. Most women are past their child-bearing years by that time. Hillary Clinton was comfortably in her 60's when she ran.

I imagine that the first female POTUS will be at least 60 when she's elected. Her possible maternity won't be an issue.

Hey you never know..Janet Jackson did have a baby at 50...

 

[NHdisneylover]

I agree, and an employer has 9 months to prepare for that time off when an employee does become pregnant.
My comment wasn't specifically about maternity leave though, it was an answer to the pp who listed things like surgery, chemo, hurt back etc. If you know you are going to have surgery and chemo and will require an extended leave your employer should be informed and it shouldn't be wrong for them to ask IMO.
If you are being interviewed I still think a prospective employer has the right to know and ask.

I don't think any of that should factor into the hiring (or electing) process. Yes, as an actual employee, if you know you have an extended absence coming up (as in are already pregnant, not just trying or planning, or have been diagnosed with cancer and know you'll be in for chemo, or have back issues and need surgery which will keep you out for 8 weeks, etc), by all means a reaosnable thing to do is let your boss know as soon as possible and help create a plan to keep thigns moving qat work in your absence. But that is not at all similar to asking if someone thinks they mioght be pregnant at some point in the future and makign decisions based on that.

(and plenty of countries have long maternity, and even paternity) leave and amazingly those countries manage to keep bussinesses running and be competitive globally---seems it IS possible to deal with.

 

[Hikergirl]

I don't think any of that should factor into the hiring (or electing) process. Yes, as an actual employee, if you know you have an extended absence coming up (as in are already pregnant, not just trying or planning, or have been diagnosed with cancer and know you'll be in for chemo, or have back issues and need surgery which will keep you out for 8 weeks, etc), by all means a reaosnable thing to do is let your boss know as soon as possible and help create a plan to keep thigns moving qat work in your absence. But that is not at all similar to asking if someone thinks they might be pregnant at some point in the future and making decisions based on that. Its not like they would cease to run if employers were allowed to base their decisions on it so that isn't really a good argument IMO.
(and plenty of countries have long maternity, and even paternity) leave and amazingly those countries manage to keep bussinesses running and be competitive globally---seems it IS possible to deal with.

I think it does. If you have multiple qualified candidates an employer, or voting public should be allowed to go with the one that is best for the job, and that is most likely the one who does not need extended leave of absence. Of course companies and countries can continue to run, but that still doesn't mean an employer, or voters shouldn't factor that in to their decision.

In the case of the OP, when reading the posts by her, I wrongly assumed that standard maternity leave was one year. If that was true, in that case I do think it is fair to ask a public official if they plan on using it during their term. Since actual maternity leave is not that long, then I do agree, there is no need to ask.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Nobody I know is taking even close to a year off.

We are talking about New Zealand situation where you can take up to 52 weeks off.

As someone who has worked in HR its hard for high level positions when pregnancy happens - but it is what it is.

 

[Aliceacc]

We adopted my son when I was 40.

I gave birth, with no complications, to my daughters, when I was 42 and 45 respectively.
Oh, and we "planned" to have kids right after our 1989 wedding. We adopted my son a decade later. It seems that God's plans weren't the same as ours.

Both Teddy Roosevelt and JFK were younger at the start of their terms than I was when my youngest were born.

Both were fathers.

A little more interesting reading: https://www.urgentcarelocations.com...lth-issues-that-plagued-former-u-s-presidents

 

[Gracie09]

Their reproductive choices are no ones business. Maybe their plan is for her husband to be the primary care giver. Maybe she is infertile and can't have kids. Maybe she hates kids and never wants to be around them. Its none of anyone's business except her and her partner.
But of course, no matter what she chooses to do, someone will says it was the wrong choice and she is a bad person because of XY&Z.