Discrimination

i have a serious question for the women out there...are there any women who have been discriminated against because you dont have children??..i have been discriminated against for promotions, and being given the crappiest shifts ever at work because i am a woman with no children. I plan on having children soon but since i currently do not have any children and my co workers do apparantly i dont need raises like they do and i shouold be given the crappy schedules and so forth and so on...this doesnt seem fair...

 

I somehow can understand why working people with children are treated "better" then those who don't.

Having children is a lot of work, and with children, your are tied down a lot more. also, children cost money.

Germany is one of the countries in the world with the lowest birthrates. Compared to the US, families get a lot of benefits from the country, 150 € per child/month, lower taxes, a 250 or 300 € allowance for SAHMs for the first 2-3 years of each child, and still the birthrate is too low. And why? Because without children you have still more money, more "freedom" to take 3 holiday trips to thailand instead of one camping trip to austria....


I am not saying that it is fair that you get ONLY the crappiest hours, but you are more free in your hours. It is also not fair if you never get any benefits, but you alone just need a little less money then if you had a kid or two.

Somebody once said, that treading everyone absolutely equal is the greatest inequality.

But if you feel treaded so totally unfair, why not talk to your boss?

 

Dreadlover--I was always under the impression that it(discrimination)went the opposite way because,so bosses felt,women would quit to raise their babies and were not really serious about career goals.This is surprising to me.You obviously deserve raises on merit and not on the size of your family.I think I remember you mentioning who your employer is,so if I remember correctly--nothing new there as regards discrimination of one kind or another.

 

I do not have much money so I get my birth control from the health department. I was told I cannot get health insurance unless a: I can prove I am in absolute poverty or b: I pop out a kid.
SO because I am responsible with my birth control, I get penalized and have no health insurance. My country (USA) is backwards! Our health care here sucks if you don't have much money. It is enraging.

 

I completely disagree. Whether or when a woman decides to have children should have no impact on how she is treated at work. And not all childless people are free in their hours at all, many childless people have an awful lot of activities outside work.

And how in hell do you know that? You don't know what financial considerations a childless woman has. Maybe she has massive debt, maybe she has aged parents to look after, maybe she does charity work. Again, procreating or not should have no effect on what shifts or promotions a woman is given.

 

I worked places that generally did not hire women who had children in the first place because they didn't want to have to work around their schedules, they would rather hire single non-parents because it's easier to schedule them to work. They would rather hire highschool graduates or dropouts because the students can't work certain times. I was refused jobs because I was pregnant, and no other reason. I was refused a promotion (before kids) just because I was a woman at one company whose history showed that only men got promoted (and most of them were related to the CEO/president). Out of over 900 employees, only one secretary had ever been promoted to a management position. Thing is, the people doing the hiring always have in their minds a bias for or against certain people, sometimes for no good reason, and sometimes because of their experience with certain employees. Do you really want to work somewhere the HR or whoever does the hiring doesn't want you to be there in the first place? Would you ever be happy in such an environment?

 

ALL womyn with children WERE once childless. Also EVERY situation you mention, womyn with children participate in,and, because they are supporting people who can't work, they are more likely to go into debt, yet they also have to make time for and SUPPORT totally helpless human beings. They see the difference. I have certainly been treated differently because I have four kids. People assume I will get pregnant again and leave jobs, they think I will miss too much work to stay home with sick kids, and womyn who have full time jobs have it even worse. Ever heard of the "Mommy Track?" I think it has basically been proven that womyn with children make LESS money in the same jobs as those who are childless. Childless womyn are seen as "more reliable." if you look at it, womyn with kids have to do EVERYTHING childless womyn do AND raise their children as well. I don't see much discrimination towards the childless, and I've been on both sides.

I am looking after aged parents, I am in debt, I do charity work. I also have four children. All this stuff was unbeleivbly easier when I didn't have to help support children.

Personally, I have never heard of a childless womyn being treated worse, but I know a lot of womyn WITH kids who are.

I've been childless and I've had kids. It was much easier in the working world when I didn't have kids. I was NEVER in debt before I had kids. Now I am, because kids are expensive. I have also never been paid more or given any benefits because I am a mother, although I have been told it would be better not to spend much time on me "because you are only gong to have more and quit or ask for time off."


I was told I was going to have to leave the job I had when I got pregnant with my first baby because "We don't let pregnant womyn work here." Nice, huh? I quit before they could fire me, I should have let them, maybe we wouldn't have gone into debt, if I had been on unemployment, I've looked for a job while visibly pregnant, NO ONE will hire you, no matter how qualified you are.

The thing is, womyn with kids HAVE been in your shoes, if you don't have kids, you have never been in ours.

 

As for the "crappy shifts" should a womyn whose children barely see her the way it is work them? Or someone who has more time to spare? Don't the crappy shifts pay overtime in most jobs anyway?

I do want to make it clear, I mean no disrespect to womyn who don't have children, for whatever reason. I am just stating my opinion, having been on both sides. It may sometimes appear that those of us with kids are treated better, but in most cases, I don't think it is true. There may be the occasional place where it is, though. I certainly haven't worked everywhere, and when I worked at a famous breastfeeding support group home office, I do think womyn with children were prefered, but there were a few men and a few childless womyn there. The pay was crappy for everyone, so no one had it better than anyone else, though.

 

So? None of that should have any impact on the shifts, or what promotions you receive at work. Whether or not a woman has children should not be a source of disrimination either way.

Yes, I'd agree on the whole women with children have more problems finding work than the childless person. How does this mean it's right for the OP to be discriminated against? Neither are right.

My point, which you missed, was that just because a woman doesn't have children does not mean she has more time to spare. Lots of people lead busy lives. I'm sorry Maggie, but you are disrespecting childless women if you say that they should work all the "crappy shifts" if favour of women with kids.

 

Did my post get deleted or did I not post on this thread because I remember reading it earlier?

I guess I didn't post.

I agree with Maggie. Most employeers don't care about their employees (at big companies inparticularly), so they wouldn't care if it was good for the woman with children, or they have so many employees they don't know.

I don't see anything wrong with an employeer giving a better shift to a mother than to a woman without children. Parents should be able to spend as much time with their kids as possible. The same goes for dads over men without children.

I don't think its acceptable to give a better shift to a mother over a father. This is sexist because its like saying (well, its more rude because it isn't being said) that men need to spend less time with their children. It goes back to gender roles which place women as the care takers of children and men as the providers for the family. Gender roles are bs.

 

Edit: I forgot about promotions

It should not effect promotions though. Employers shouldn't give promotions to people with children over people who don't have children.

 

No, that's wrong. It's basically saying people who procreate are more deserving than people that don't. People who don't have kids often lead very full lives as well, and whichever way it goes, one's personal life should have nothing to do with what one's treatment at work. I'm sorry, but no matter how much you sugar-coat it discriminating against a person in the workplace because of their lifestyle choices out of the workplace is flat out wrong no matter which way you look at it.

 

....

 

...

 

I don't mean to be unsympathetic but how can you expect someone to give you a job knowing that you are going to have to leave in a few months and they are going to have to somehow replace you anyway?

 

i dont think you should discriminate someone because they dont have kids.

It would be nice for parents to get hours that are beneficial to taking care of kids...but once you start discriminating against someone else you've gone too far.

 

showing preferential treatment to one employee (for whatever reasons) is not the same thing as discrimination. If I hire in somewhere, with the agreement ahead of time that I don't ever work 2nd shift, it is not discrimination when they schedule someone else to work those hours. If they refuse to hire me just because I have kids, that is discrimination. If they hire someone else, less qualified than I am, who has no kids, because they have no kids, that is discrimination.

 

preferential treatment IS discrimination.

What you described would be part of a contract(verbal or otherwise) that you do not work that shift. That's fine. That is not preferential treatment but something that you negotiated at your time of hiring.

 

but isn't that exactly what the OP is complaining about?

 

i dont think so...she said

"i have been discriminated against for promotions, and being given the crappiest shifts ever at work because i am a woman with no children. I plan on having children soon but since i currently do not have any children and my co workers do apparantly i dont need raises like they do and i shouold be given the crappy schedules and so forth and so on...this doesnt seem fair..."

Maybe the women with kids asked only for the 'better' shifts, but that doesn't explain why the op isnt getting promotions or raises. That has nothing to do with anyone else.

I know my brother has gotten better shifts and extra hours(if he's wanted them) since he found out his gf is pregnant. I think employers tend to help those with families out. I dont think its really a 'lets get the people without kids' type discrimination. It is more of overlooking those people in favor of those with kids because they need the extra money or time with their kids.