Washington state does not have a paid maternity leave program yet. While the Washington program was approved, there has been no funding mechanism put in place, and the program is not slated to begin paying benefits until Oct. 1 2009. It will pay $250/week for five weeks, and I believe those benefits are cut for women whose employers already pay any benefits.

The concept of "Pregnancy Discrimination" is absurd. Why should a business owner hire a woman who is seven months pregnant - knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work? The labor market is not a charity, it is a competition - and it should not be hindered by absurdities like "Pregnancy Discrimination Acts".

But I guess opinions like that make me a troll.

But I guess opinions like that make me a troll.

You'll be called one for it.

I'd add that pregnancy (as stated in a previous article) is not a disability. It's not an injury, it's not something that befell you with you having no say in the matter.

Getting pregnant, and staying that way, in the vast majority of cases, is a clear choice. It was/is a voluntary decision. It's not an illness.

I don't really believe in the concept of forcing people to pay maternity leave. It's ridiculous. People scream for paid maternity leave, but, naturally, no paternity leave.

Look at it from the employers perspective. Not only do you have to pay an employee who isn't even working, but you also have to pay for a temp in her absence.

"knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work?"

Do you need to perpetrate the stereotype that pregnant women are sick, frail creatures who can't pull their own weight around?

And I won't call trolling this time, but seriously, why are some of you here? A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy. I'm tired of hearing: "Oh, she's a waste of resources, we better fire her because she got pregnant." There is a reason people are fighting against unfair and discriminatory practices and this is one. Companies already fuck with women by paying us less simply because we're women, but then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

Yeah, I'd say that's worth a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

"knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work?"

Do you need to perpetrate the stereotype that pregnant women are sick, frail creatures who can't pull their own weight around?

And I won't call trolling this time, but seriously, why are some of you here? A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy. I'm tired of hearing: "Oh, she's a waste of resources, we better fire her because she got pregnant." There is a reason people are fighting against unfair and discriminatory practices and this is one. Companies already fuck with women by paying us less simply because we're women, but then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

Yeah, I'd say that's worth a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

How is it related to men's rights, to comment on what pregnant women can or cannot do?

Fact is, yes, pregnant women operate in a diminished capacity. Not at first, no, but as they reach their due date, there are many things they cannot do.

It's not sexist to notice that a pregnant woman has serious physical changes that will impede her ability to do certain things.

It also isn't sexist to note that she will require some time off work to have the child, as well.

They also do start to have a degraded energy level because of it.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy.

I'd also think it's because pregnancy is not a disabling accident that you had no say in. The initial pregnancy may have been accidental, but there was a voluntary choice made to continue it. A choice with consequences.

then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

You can call it sexist, but when a man gets a woman pregnant, while her body is going through various changes, eventually requiring time off work, his body does not change.

Yes, it takes two to tango, but the physical consequences don't affect both.

Why are some of us here?

I can't speak for everyone, but, personally, I find it to be intellectually fulfilling to read and comprehend the arguments of those who are so far out on the left-wing of the spectrum that they believe it is a sexist stereotype to state that a pregnant woman is not able to perform the duties of her job to the same extent that a nonpregnant woman is.

A pregnant woman IS "frail". She CAN'T "pull her weight around". It's part of the discomfort of being a pregnancy. To deny this is . . . well, it's either idiocy or insanity. I'd have to know you better to know which it is.

So, yes, in answer to your question - just as I like to read the comments on Stormfront so that I can understand the mindset behind the ultra-right wing philosophies, I also like to read the commentaries posted here to understand its counterbalance.

Just as you can't discriminate against an autistic man, a man in a wheelchair, a man who is missing an arm or leg, a man who is chronically depressed, a man who is unable to stand due to breathing problems for more than 5 minutes, etc, you cannot discriminate against a pregnant woman.
Sure if a job listed in its original requirements "must be able to lift 50 pounds multiple times daily upon hire" you can probably discriminate against any of the physically disabled since they do not meet the physical requirments If the original job, as many are, is an office job with lots of sitting, you can't.
Even if you're impressionable enough to think a pregnant woman is just a bunch of raging hormones, if you are considering her for a job why hire the chronically depressed man instead? Because you can't SEE that he's chronically depressed, and you can SEE that a pregnant woman might have some extra hormones floating around?
What jobs are you all exactly imagining 7-month-pregnant women applying for where they can't do their work just as well as others (the depressed, the asthmatic, the easily stressed, the people who get panic attacks, the smokers who go outside to take a break for 10 minutes every half hour, the )?
It is cheating to mention jobs that would state in the original posting "must be able to stand for 3 hours at a stretch" or "must be able to lift 50 pounds safely" or anything like that, since obviously most pregnant women can't fulfill this requirement.

*man used on purpose

*please disregard bad grammar and ", the" in parens, I was on a rant and deleted badly.

Mild Ennui--Some pregnant women work in a diminished capacity. I'm not. I'm an editor, I sit at a desk, work at a computer, or sit in a comfy chair and read manuscripts. I'm also chronically ill on top of that, and having a difficult high-risk pregnancy, and I'm still getting more work done than some of my coworkers.

And, fuck you, Lewis Ranja, I'm not FRAIL. I bet I could still kick your ass.

I'm not going to argue whether women or men deserve leave to care for a child--I think few of you actually have any clue how business actually works. A well-run company takes care of its employees because that's the best way to do business. A company cannot be successful while abusing its employees, not unless it's Walmart and has a constant influx of new and desperate workers.

The problem with your argument, LewisRanja, is that you're not paying attention.

The issue is not that business owners will not hire a woman who's seven months pregnant. There is absolutely no way any law can protect a woman from not being hired because she was pregnant; the employer simply has to say "she wasn't a good fit" or "her qualifications weren't up to par." The problem we are discussing is when women are *fired* from the job they already had for being pregnant.

Pregnancy often does result in having impaired ability to do your work for a while. So does going through a divorce, getting into a car accident because you chose to drive while you were tired, contracting the flu because you were staying up too late every night, getting a back injury because you were playing sports, and so on. Many of these conditions are brought on by the person who suffers them, but the difference is:

a. all of them can happen to men
b. none of them have to do with sex
c. all of them *could* have been suffered from involuntary actions or random chance as well as through your own fault

A, B, and C are *all* true and it would be disingenuous to claim that the only difference between pregnancy and the conditions above is C... but A and B are related to sexism.

If a pregnant employee is treated differently than an employee who broke his leg in a ski accident, that is sex discrimination. Pure and simple. She didn't have to have sex and then choose to keep the pregnancy, and he didn't have to choose to ski. Both are lifestyle choices; she wants to be a mother and he wants to be a skiier. There is, in fact, no real difference between the pregnant woman being temporarily disabled because of something she chose to do, and the man with the broken leg temporarily disabled because of something he chose to do. (Someone may point out that he didn't choose to ski in the belief he would get a broken leg, whereas all pregnancy is disabling, but that's not true; I've read of CIA agents who worked until they went into labor, gave birth, and were on a plane to a foreign country the day after giving birth, back on the job again. Not all women are disabled in any way by pregnancy.)

Given that most women will at some point in their lives choose to be pregnant, allowing discrimination against employees who are pregnant unfairly penalizes women for being female. If we were men, we could have children and our careers would not suffer, but because we carry the child, we must either let our careers suffer or be childless? I don't think so. A good employee is worth keeping on even if she has to work on a slightly lighter duty for a couple of months and then take six weeks off, because if she's been working longer than three months before getting pregnant, it would take longer for the company to train someone to her level of skill and familiarity with the work than it would to just ride out her pregnancy and wait for her to come back. And if you don't fire men for breaking their legs in ski accidents, then you don't fire women for getting pregnant. It's that simple.

Just as you can't discriminate against an autistic man, a man in a wheelchair, a man who is missing an arm or leg, a man who is chronically depressed, a man who is unable to stand due to breathing problems for more than 5 minutes, etc, you cannot discriminate against a pregnant woman.

That's just it, those are not the same.

Of all of those conditions, which one is voluntary? There's only one, and it's pregnancy.

the smokers who go outside to take a break for 10 minutes every half hour,

I take one smoke break (timed at precisely 90 seconds), once per hour.

Considering I don't take an hour off for lunch, I figure my productivity is unhurt by my brief breaks.

Even if you were hiring the pregnant woman for a job that her pregnancy would not affect, your comparison to the man in the wheelchair falls flat for one big reason - - - the man in the wheelchair won't be demanding time off after only being on the job for a few months.

Wow, way to perpetuate stereotypes of pregnant women. Women experience pregnancy in a wide variety of ways although popular culture will have us believe that all pregnant women are unstable, vomiting whales. To believe that a woman cannot function to her full capacity while pregnant is discriminatory and insulting. It is not up to the employers to determine if a pregnant woman is capable of doing her job.

I think it's kinda funny, first off, that anyone considers Feministing to be "far" left. It's left, certainly, but far? That's a bit of a stretch.

Also, something I thought of. The idea was raised that there is a difference between discriminating against a women who has become pregnant, because it was her choice, and against someone who has had an accident, because it was not their choice. But consider, if you will, that if a couple chooses to have a pregnancy, the woman is left with no choice about being the one to bear the child (I speak, I am aware, from a very heteronormal POV. There was an article at Alternet recently about a couple consisting of a woman and a trans man, in which the woman was infertile, so the trans man (who had retained his original female fertility capabilities) chose to carry the child. This is an exceptional case).

So in this sense, the woman was given "no" choice about becoming pregnant. Are all working couples to remain childless forever? I think that would be rather ridiculous to ask of anyone. Thus, if a woman has a career, it IS discriminatory to fire her for becoming pregnant.

I feel I should add that I am a fervent supporter of paid maternity and paternity leave. I think it's important for parents to be home with their children in the earliest time after a birth. Thus they would both need financial support shortly after a pregnancy. Also, if a couple consists of two fathers, what are they to do?

Also, an addendum based on the comments that were added since I clicked "Preview."

"the man in the wheelchair won't be demanding time off after only being on the job for a few months." - Lewis Ranja

You make it sound like female employees are just dying to get some maternity leave - going out and getting pregnant, just for that glorious time off! Please be realistic. Individuals who have the means (and given the corporate type of world we seem to have been discussing, I will assume these pregnant women have the means) usually plan their pregnancies.

As a pregnant woman who is due in a couple of weeks, I will bring my left-wing pregnant woman perspective to this.

First of all, not ALL women are unable to do their jobs when they become pregnant. Not all pregnancies are physically disabling (mine is a good example- I still hit the gym for over an hour every day and I'm about ready to pop). I have not found that I can no longer lift the things I could before.

Now, that's not true for all pregnant women, and that's where we discuss "stereotypes". A stereotype is when we say, because person A is like this, and person A is a member of group X, then any member in group X probably is the same way.
That is unfair. It is fair of an employer to make sure that, with reasonable accommodation, an employee can do the job. That's not what this federal legislation is about. It simply prohibits you from failing to hire or firing someone BECAUSE of the pregancy.

Now, "ability" isn't even an issue in many of the contexts where women are fired or not hired for being pregnant. Many office jobs, for example, can be performed until the minute you go into labor. And not every mom takes of months for leave. Yes, some special situations require that. But I know several women who were back to their jobs in less than a month.

In addition, I really take issue with the assertion that the partner of a pregnant woman is not physically affected by pregnancy. The fatigue affects BOTH partners, BOTH of whom are awakened every two hours for the first few months of their child's life.

I would also argue that it IS in most employers' best interest (aside from avoiding lawsuits) to reasonably accommodate an employee who is pregnant. My husband chose his law firm on the basis of its paid paternity leave and the fact that it has an exceptional reputation for promoting women and retaining mothers. Good employees are hard to come by, and in competitive job markets, these things go a long way.

I am really frustrated by a lot of the "if you can't deal with the challenges of pregnancy, don't get pregnant" crap that gets articulated on this FEMINIST website. If you think pregnant women should drop out of the workforce, I do think you're on the wrong website.

Lewis Ranja, Mild Ennui, do you view reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I do hope that the increased reports of descrimination are a result of more women coming forward, rather than more descrimination. It would be great news if this was taken seriously and investigated.

Just one last comment before I call it a day.

Llencelyn writes . .

"I think it's kinda funny, first off, that anyone considers Feministing to be "far" left. It's left, certainly, but far? That's a bit of a stretch."

Then follows it up with . . .
"I speak, I am aware, from a very heteronormal POV. There was an article at Alternet recently about a couple consisting of a woman and a trans man, in which the woman was infertile, so the trans man (who had retained his original female fertility capabilities) chose to carry the child."

I know, I know, I know. In the world you immerse yourself in, all of this seems just normal lightly-left banter. But trust me, to the Average Joe, this website is about as far left as you can get without putting a Hammer-And-Sickle next to the banner.

Trust me on this. I beg you.

Mild Ennui, you may take brief smoke breaks. Other smokers really do stay outside for 10 minutes at a time, every hour or so.

Some pregnant women are disabled by their pregnancies. Others are not.

When I was pregnant and running my own IT business, I was just as productive as when I was not pregnant, up until the last week of the pregnancy. This is in part because my job was always work-from-home. But right now I am recovering from a voluntary surgery to correct problems caused by my pregnancy a year ago, and I have a regular corporate job, and they hired me even though I had the surgery scheduled because they needed someone to do the job and they knew I knew how to do it. And I was out for 3 days and since then have pulled 40-hour weeks working from home. There is no reason the average pregnant IT worker couldn't do the same (which is one of the reasons it appalls me that there are so few women in IT; gals, the profession was *made* for us. IT LETS YOU WORK FROM HOME OR IN A HOSPITAL BED, WITH A BABY NURSING ON YOUR LAP. Screw being a nurse or a schoolteacher; if you want to be a mom choose a career where pregnancy won't matter! But I digress.)

And, y'know, maybe the guy who can't stand up due to breathing problems got that way by smoking, which is voluntary. Or maybe he got that way by getting pneumonia and then choosing not to treat it, like Jim Henson did and died of. So actually, how do you know that the pregnant woman is the only one that got that way from voluntary choices?

Besides, pregnancy per se is not disabling. Many, many pregnancies are disabling, but not all. The 6 weeks off women get for maternity leave is legally permitted to men as well -- FMLA allows both men and women to take leave for adopting a child, taking care of a sick loved one, or having a baby. So since you don't know when you hire a *man* if his *wife* is pregnant and he's going to demand 6 weeks off to take care of her, why would it be fair not to hire the woman who is pregnant? Her, at least, you *know* the situation. She can't lie to you about it.

(True story: I got pregnant about two months before planned layoffs, because I figured hey, I'll be out of work anyway, and I knew *I'd* have a problem pregnancy most likely, so do it while I'm not working. My husband was making huge amounts of money as an IT consultant at the time. But then his consulting gig dried up and we couldn't afford to pay COBRA for the health insurance my employer had been providing, so he had to take a job with health insurance quick. It paid much less than the last one had and he was miserable. He was recruited for a new job making more money, but it would have been right around the time the baby was due. So he just totally failed to mention to these people that his wife was pregnant. And a week after getting the new job, he took several days off to be with me when I had the baby. You have no way of knowing if a man is going to do that to you, because you're not allowed to ask.)

Mild Ennui, you may take brief smoke breaks. Other smokers really do stay outside for 10 minutes at a time, every hour or so.

I'm sure they do, but to say it's done every half hour is a bit of an exaggeration. Even heavy smokers like myself, don't *need* a cigarette every 30 minutes.

The 6 weeks off women get for maternity leave is legally permitted to men as well -- FMLA allows both men and women to take leave for adopting a child, taking care of a sick loved one, or having a baby.

Try getting an employer to agree with it. Besides which, it's a little ludicrous to take 6 weeks off if you're a man, when your partner is taking her 6 weeks.

Where's the income going to come from?

Besides, I see no need for both parents to take the time off. The time off is meant to cover a bit of recovery and somesuch, or whatever. The male doesn't need that.

So since you don't know when you hire a *man* if his *wife* is pregnant and he's going to demand 6 weeks off to take care of her

Because almost no man will take 6 weeks off, because of the reasons I stated above.

I know, I know, I know. In the world you immerse yourself in, all of this seems just normal lightly-left banter. But trust me, to the Average Joe, this website is about as far left as you can get without putting a Hammer-And-Sickle next to the banner.

Wow, Godwin's law in just 19 comments! Is that a new record?

As my British friend was just telling me, only in America is the "left" so far to the right.

Lewis Ranja, Mild Ennui, do you view reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I just now noticed this one.

I suppose I view it as something of a privilege, yes.

Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should. Some people can't afford a child. Some people aren't mentally equipped to raise one. The wanting of something doesn't equate with the needing of it, or the ability to do it.

The privilege part, I suppose, comes from the fact that I think the government has better things to spend my money on than paying for people's children, when those people went into it knowing they were totally unable to do it themselves.

Thanks for answering my question. I think a great deal of the conflict in the thread comes from opposing views of reproduction as privilege or a right. I view reproduction and everything that comes with it as a right. Therefore, I believe that employers have an obligation to have paid maternity/paternity leave.

I think that reproduction/children have been turned into a luxury, therefore society views it as something only within the reach of those who can afford it. Have you noticed the emphasis on giving children 'the best' of everything? To a certain degree, it's consumerism reaching its hands into a woman's uterus and it disturbs me to a great deal.

Thanks for answering my question. I think a great deal of the conflict in the thread comes from opposing views of reproduction as privilege or a right. I view reproduction and everything that comes with it as a right.

Well, I just believe if you need the government to feed your offspring, you shouldn't have had any.

think that reproduction/children have been turned into a luxury, therefore society views it as something only within the reach of those who can afford it. Have you noticed the emphasis on giving children 'the best' of everything? To a certain degree, it's consumerism reaching its hands into a woman's uterus and it disturbs me to a great deal.

It's not even just that. Food, shelter, clothing, are not the "best of everything".

If you need the government to subsidize your reproduction, then you shouldn't reproduce.

I don't think that's unfair to say. Sure, falling back on assistance in times of great emergency is one thing, but relying on it to feed your child on much more than a temporary basis is a serious problem.

If your finances won't allow a child, you shouldn't treat it as a "rights" situation. People should exercise good judgement about it.

"If you need the government to subsidize your reproduction, then you shouldn't reproduce."

I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

"A pregnant woman IS "frail". She CAN'T "pull her weight around". It's part of the discomfort of being a pregnancy."

I can't speak for every woman, but I work at a desk so I really don't see how "pulling my weight" would have anything to do with my ability to work. I can sit in a chair and type just as well pregnant or not.

I would love to see women and men have some mandatory paid leave to bond with a new child. Providing parental leave would encourage loyalty in employees and be a good business practice, not to mention just being a human thing to do.

Check out wikipedia's paid maternity leave entry. It has a lovely chart outlining paid and un-paid maternity leave in every country. The U.S. is one of the only ones listed that does not require paid maternity leave. Paid maternity leave is in place all over the world because IT WORKS.

It's only a matter of time before the U.S. catches up to other countries like the U.K., Sweden, France, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Mongolia, Cuba, Congo, Egypt, Cambodia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and pretty much every other fucking country in the world.

I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

I fail to see how that relates. You say that like people somehow need sex to survive, and can't stop themselves from doing it.

Paid maternity leave is in place all over the world because IT WORKS.

What do you mean, "it works"? It works...at what?

realityfighter: I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

I'm with Ennui on this, actually. People who need government support on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to raise their kids shouldn't be having kids in the first place. I depart from Ennui, it seems, in that I do, in fact, believe in 100% government subsidized birth control and abortion, as well as making both of those extremely easy for anyone to get.

The problem I have with paid maternity leave is that it is a form of compensation, in that a job with it, all else being equal, is more desirable than one without it. Being required to provide women with extra benefits seems like a legitimate reason to give them less cash compensation. For those women planning to have children, it evens out, but it isn't fair to the women who don't. In America, there is no pay gap between men and women who never marry and never have children. Would this cease being the case if such women were now required to accept a company benefit they don't want?

I don't know. Does anyone know if studies on this have been done in nations with paid maternity leave?

Who do you think you're talking to, Mild Ennui?

Feminists support paternity leave as well as maternity leave. Or did you think you were talking to conservatives for a minute?
At my office, women have to go on Disibility when they give birth.
My co-worker had a baby two weeks ago and she did a KICK-ASS job until the week beforehand. You'd never know she was pregnant if you couldn't see her.

"That's just it, those are not the same.

Of all of those conditions, which one is voluntary? There's only one, and it's pregnancy.
"

I think most women who get pregnant would like to be able to choose not to be weak or out of breath or have hormonal problems while pregnant. (Some women have none of these problems). So while the woman chose to get pregnant, she didn't choose the unfortunate genes that cause her to have hormone problems or weakness during pregnancy. There's a chance that she could be one of those women on a plane the next day after a birth.
So discriminating against/not hiring pregnant women just because they *might have been* unfortunate enough to get the genetics that screw up their hormones or strength or ability to work seems pretty sexist to me.
The only thing different is that pregnancy is temporary...

Feminists support paternity leave as well as maternity leave. Or did you think you were talking to conservatives for a minute?

Well, naturally, though, there's a lot less interest on your collective part for working to achieve that, as there is to working to acheive a mandatory paid leave for women.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems more of a "This one first, then that", rather than "Let's achieve these both at the same time", thing.

Regardless, Alice brings up an interesting point.

If mandatory paid leave was reality (for either one or both sexes), what about the people who don't want children?

My problem with belief that a woman should not have a child if she cannot afford one is that it reeks of economic privilege. It is economic social Darwinism.

My problem with belief that a woman should not have a child if she cannot afford one is that it reeks of economic privilege. It is economic social Darwinism.

Not really. In previous eras, if a woman couldn't feed, clothe, take care of, or provide medical care for her child, guess what? They did. Not really economic Darwinism, just plain old regular Darwinism.

Just because the government is there, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get them to feed, house, clothe, and support the children of people that were incapable of supporting them themselves.

It's not economic privilege, really. It doesn't take a millionaire to have a child. But if you can barely feed yourself, and struggle every month with bills, your priorities shouldn't be reproduction.