The Student Room Group

Women, don't even bother looking for a job!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2175571/Julia-LLewellyn-Smith-risks-wrath-feminists-If-women-taking-maternity-leave-boss-want-employ-us.html

Its a sad situation, and although I think there can be ways round it, I can understand the employers mindset. After all, when you start a business and hire staff, its to make money usually, and so why take on someone who will most probably turn out to be a drain on the purse?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Sir Fox
Sir Fox
18
Saw Daily Mail as the source, didn't even bother reading ...
Reply 2
Avatar for Steezy
Steezy
15
I think... Contrary to your sound advice based on a sensationalist article by the Daily Mail.... Women should actually still look for jobs.
I've seen tons of women at assessment centres for graduate schemes and plenty who have gotten excellent jobs after university. Whilst it might be true in some cases I really don't think that it is the rule and is rather the exception.

Daily Mail = Fail.
Although it is the Daily Fail, I think they still have a point.

One of my friends recently got pregnant and she's getting 6 months full pay, 3 months half pay and 3 months unpaid. She is taking a year off!

I am never having children, and hate to think that my job chances are going to be affected because people assume I'm going to have kids.
One comment interestingly said that there should be a more even split between maternity and paternity leave...which i am more and more inclined to agree with. 2 weeks compared to nearly a year is somewhat misbalanced in this "equal" age...and i think if paternity leave was increased significantly to share the responsibility, then the reservation to employ women may lessen somewhat. The fallacy of course being that only 50% of men take their paternity leave.
Still, whether or not it is ethically wrong, i can see why employers would prefer a man over a woman of reproductive age, it makes no business sense, its not personal at all
Reply 6
Avatar for 455409
455409
17
Original post by Carpediemxx
One comment interestingly said that there should be a more even split between maternity and paternity leave...which i am more and more inclined to agree with. 2 weeks compared to nearly a year is somewhat misbalanced in this "equal" age...and i think if paternity leave was increased significantly to share the responsibility, then the reservation to employ women may lessen somewhat. The fallacy of course being that only 50% of men take their paternity leave.
Still, whether or not it is ethically wrong, i can see why employers would prefer a man over a woman of reproductive age, it makes no business sense, its not personal at all

Except men can't breast feed.
I don't even want children :sad: but it's probably not reliable.
Reply 8
Avatar for Tiger Rag
Tiger Rag
22
Original post by Carpediemxx
One comment interestingly said that there should be a more even split between maternity and paternity leave...which i am more and more inclined to agree with. 2 weeks compared to nearly a year is somewhat misbalanced in this "equal" age...and i think if paternity leave was increased significantly to share the responsibility, then the reservation to employ women may lessen somewhat. The fallacy of course being that only 50% of men take their paternity leave.


But men aren't the ones giving birth or breastfeeding. That being said, two weeks is nowhere near long enough.

It's discrimination. Some women can't / don't want to have children. Why should they be discriminated against, just because someone thinks they may have children soon?
men will alway sbe prefered in the job market, it's just a fact of life get over it.

Neg me all you want girls, i'll be the one with the job when i leave uni :biggrin:
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 10
Avatar for Luxray
Luxray
15
Not gonna bother reading that since its daily mail, all I'm going to so say is about 80% of the part time retail jobs in my area are covered by girls. I hardly ever see a guy serving me at a till.
Advances in technology mean it's much easier to work from home, so there's no reason women shouldn't be able to continue to work for the organisation, at least on a part-time basis, whilst carrying out their motherly duties.
Reply 12
Avatar for kat2pult
kat2pult
18
I don't want children. Maybe I should start putting that on my CV.
My manager and assistant manager are both pregnant, one was unintentional, the other wasn't exactly planned but they did want children. Both will be off for a year a couple of months apart once they get around 6 months in I think, and I heard the area manager had said he's not going to hire woman managers because of this 'risk'.

I'm in that 'high risk' age bracket in that article and I'm not planning on ever having children. Maybe I should get a hysterectomy so I can get a high earning job, because then I'm not a 'womb in waiting'?
Oh look ANOTHER DAILY FAIL!!!!!!!!! This rag of a newspaper, needs to get better headlines.

Nice to see a daily fail fan boy: Clip
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 15
Avatar for DalePie
DalePie
7
Femail is the carefully feminised section of the Daily Mail, away from all the sexist/racist/homophobic stuff in the normal paper. Anyone who knows about layouts and web design can see the section split on the home page.

I don't know why women would ever read the Daily Mail. Then again some people are daft as a brush... :rolleyes:
Original post by Mutedmirth
My manager and assistant manager are both pregnant, one was unintentional, the other wasn't exactly planned but they did want children. Both will be off for a year a couple of months apart once they get around 6 months in I think, and I heard the area manager had said he's not going to hire woman managers because of this 'risk'.

I'm in that 'high risk' age bracket in that article and I'm not planning on ever having children. Maybe I should get a hysterectomy so I can get a high earning job, because then I'm not a 'womb in waiting'?


Good luck with that. I tried to get sterilised but the doctor refused.
Original post by james1211
Except men can't breast feed.


I was bottle fed and you can also put breast milk in bottles too
Original post by OU Student
But men aren't the ones giving birth or breastfeeding. That being said, two weeks is nowhere near long enough.

It's discrimination. Some women can't / don't want to have children. Why should they be discriminated against, just because someone thinks they may have children soon?


Giving birth doesn't take a year. The point being, 2 weeks can be significantly increased to lessen the discrepency.
Reply 19
Avatar for rmpr97
rmpr97
10
Original post by EssexDan86
Advances in technology mean it's much easier to work from home, so there's no reason women shouldn't be able to continue to work for the organisation, at least on a part-time basis, whilst carrying out their motherly duties.


Except it costs money for the employer, to get them a computer, all the relevant software, then a work phone with a contract etc.

Solution, you lower maternity leave with far less pay, or you make paternity leave equal.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you