Skip to main content

knocked up, not down

a few years ago, i was working for a company and a woman from my department went on maternity leave. shortly after she left, the "big boss", under the guise of making casual conversation, sauntered through the offices of all the female employees in their late twenties to mid-thirties and chatted about how incredibly disruptive it was to a company when a woman went on maternity leave- how she was really making it difficult for the whole company to keep working.

those who know me know that i made a choice to be a non-breeder long ago and have never wavered. however, that doesn't mean it wasn't incredibly insulting to have someone talking to me about all the problems i'd cause if i were to have a child. to say nothing of the fact that i knew other women at that company who wanted to have children. it was a tricky situation.

on the one hand, i know that what he was saying was true. in canada, parents are entitled to a year off in maternity/ paternity leave. [that is, they have one year total. generally the mother takes it, but it can be divided between the mother and the father, as long as they don't take more than a year combined.] that's a long time to go without an employee. you can hire a replacement, but there is always a training period and there will always be some slowdowns. and the smaller a company is, the more it's going to be affected by maternity leave.

but knowing that and saying it, particularly when you're in a position of authority, are two very different things. there were women who felt threatened when they got this little "friendly chat", or who felt like the company was trying to guilt-trip them into delaying starting a family at the least. companies aren't supposed to do that. but they do.

in fact, while companies are required to give returning mothers their same- or an equivalent- job upon returning to work, many have no compunction about changing the specifics of that job, or offering them a lateral move to a job they'd then have to learn from the ground up. in point of fact, that's exactly what happened to the woman who went on maternity leave at this particular company: she was offered another position in another department and a replacement hired for the position she held previously. i never talked to her about whether or not she wanted this other position. i suspect she didn't. but it makes things kind of difficult when your old job is occupied.

that doesn't make the decision a bad one, but it does illustrate the dangers to career women who want to start families. even with legal protection, you are still vulnerable to employers who believe the uterus is a time bomb, waiting to derail their corporate growth.

which is why it was both surprising and heartening to hear that yahoo's brand-new ceo is not merely a woman but a pregnant woman. the media reported that both her new job and her condition were revealed this week, but since she's apparently six months into term, i'm guessing that a few people might have figured it out already. and yet yahoo looked past the short-term issues and apparently saw someone who they believed could handle the job of reversing their floundering fortunes. it's a bold move and it's difficult to overstate just how bold it is.

one would hope that this might "normalise" the concept of hiring women for key positions regardless of whether or not they are starting a family. i suspect that it won't be quite so quick to catch on, however and that a lot of ceo's will shrug at the story and think [or say] "i wouldn't do that". but even if it takes a while to catch on, this establishes a precedent that's difficult to ignore. if melissa mayer succeeds as yahoo ceo, she will become a thing of legend. if she doesn't, she actually won't have done any worse than any of the other ceo's who have shuffled through yahoo in recent years.

way to go, sister. get back to us on which of your two new jobs is more demanding.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

eat the cup 2018, part seven :: oh, lionheart

it all seemed so magical: england's fresh-faced youngsters marching all the way through to a semi-final for the first time since 1990. everywhere, the delirious chants of "it's coming home". and then, deep into added time, the sad realization: it's not coming home. oh england, my lionheart.

now, if we're being really strict about things, my scottish ancestors would probably disown me for supporting England, because those are the bastards who drove them off their land and sent them packing to this country that's too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. and indeed, shops in scotland have sold through their entire stock of croatian jerseys, as the natives rallied behind england's opponents in the semi-final. however, a few generations before they were starved and hounded from the lands they'd occupied for centuries, my particular brand of scottish ancestors would have encouraged me to support england [assuming that national football had even…

dj kali & mr. dna @ casa del popolo post-punk night

last night was a blast! a big thank you to dj tyg for letting us guest star on her monthly night, because we had a great time. my set was a little more reminiscent of the sets that i used to do at katacombes [i.e., less prone to strange meanderings than what you normally hear at the caustic lounge]. i actually invited someone to the night with the promise "don't worry, it'll be normal". which also gives you an idea of what to expect at the caustic lounge. behold my marketing genius.

mr. dna started off putting the "punk" into the night [which i think technically means i was responsible for the post, which doesn't sound quite so exciting]. i'd say that he definitely had the edge in the bouncy energy department.

many thanks to those who stopped in throughout the night to share in the tunes, the booze and the remarkably tasty nachos and a special thank you to the ska boss who stuck it out until the end of the night and gave our weary bones a ride home…

friday favourites 20.07.12

i was almost going to skip it this week. not out of any disinterest, but i always feel weird posting something flip and cheeky on days when the news is choked with stories of some location filled with people going about their lives suddenly getting shot up by a lone maniac with some sort of personal gripe or agenda.

awful things happen every single day. people who lead otherwise normal lives are suddenly transformed through violence every single day. by the harsh standards of the world, what happened last night in aurora, colorado isn't even close to the worst. i'm sure families in syria would consider a day where ten people died to be better than average. but there is something about these completely random mass shootings in otherwise fairly peaceful places that haunts us all here in the western world. it happened today with aurora. it happened a year ago sunday in norway. it happened in another colorado town, now synonymous with the terror of such a massacre in 1999.

what h…