Targeting mothers May 12, 2008
Apparently, many employers aren’t too keen on hiring women with children:
…there are 22 states where the employer is not legally supposed to ask about marital status. That said, wedding rings are a common giveaway. The biggest deal is kids, though. A recent study found mothers were 79 percent less likely to be offered a job given equally qualified job applicants. The New York Times reported on maternal profiling as a new term this year, and frankly, that is important. Naming this practice identifies the challenge.
I am deathly afraid of stepping on anyone’s toes here, so I will tread lightly. I am not a mother, I will just put that out there right now. I am also a nurse, a job that requires you to take care of very sick people, who may or may not die because of lack of astute nursing. That being said, I have worked with many women with children who call in sick, are late, or have to leave early ALOT because of their children and the many challenges they present (illness, and 10 million milestones a year that cannot be missed ie games, proms, confirmations, plays, etc. However, our job is not one that you can do “later” or “work from home” or anything like that. You have to be there, you absolutely have to be there. So, the leftover work of the mothers who have weaseled their way out of work early, or into work late, falls on the shoulders of others. Namely those who do not have children. In addition, those who do not have children are held to a higher standard of attendance. So, this may seem like it has nothing to do with your topic of discriminating against mothers, but what about all of us who choose to remain childless, but end up shouldering the burdens of others with children. I put up with this and never really say anything about it, but no one stands up for single people without children. It is as if we have infinite time, and our lives are just not as important. (end soapbox)
It’s pretty clear in my office (a county planning department) that women are postponing having children because they don’t want to hurt their careers. For the few women who do have children, there are allowances made so that they don’t have to attend as many evening meetings, but I do believe that this hurts their advancement opportunities.
If more men would share in the child-related absences this wouldn’t be such a big issue, but unfortunately that isn’t yet the case.
I think Amanda makes a very valid point that few consider. My issue is with teachers that start off the school year a few month’s pregnant,go on maternity leave (sticking the kids with a sub) and deciding not to return to class for the rest of the school year. This has happened to one of my children on 4 different occasions over the years! I hate to say it but, I almost wish the local Board Of Ed didn’t hire young women. I know it sounds horrible but, the children’s education suffers with the disruption.
1) Mothers who are raising children are shouldering many burdens. We just don’t get paid for them. If no one had kids, then the human race would die out. Extra chores at work pale in comparison. I’ve been on both sides of this, and the people who think they have it rough at work simply have no idea of what it’s like to raise kids, too.
2) On-site childcare sure would make things easier. Childcare is horribly expensive for parents, and it complicates life. Progressive companies recognize this. It’s not all that many years that our kids are exceedingly needy. Many of us plan to have 50+ year careers. It’s worth investing in parents, who develop many, many skills raising kids.