Discrimination

That is discrimination, as Megara said. Giving preferential treatment to whites, young people whatever, it all amounts to the same thing. I don't think discrimination is always a bad thing. Hell, if promotions were only given to those who are competant, that's discriminating against the incompetant.

Personally, I have no problem swapping shifts around and whatnot for people with a variety of commitments, not just children. It's just that if automatically giving one group of people preferential treatment over another group becomes an ingrained feature of the workplace culture, that is a problem.

 

The OP and other childless womyn are NOT discriminated against. No one I know thinks they are. Few on the thread think they are. Everyone who IS a mother has ALSO been childless at one point, and NONE of us saw being childless as a form of "discrimination" in fact, almost all of us who have been in BOTH places, see having kids as the ones who are dicriminated against. You have never heard of the MOMMY TRACK?

FTR, most womyn with children DO NOT expect preferencial treatment, as we KNOW we aren't going to get it.

Kiz, you were complaining about taking care of "aging" parents, charity work, debt ect, All I said was that womyn who have children ALSO have all this AND KIDS. Which makes them more busy than someone with parents, charity work, debt and NO kids. How come YOUR charity work, your parents and YOUR debt is important and MINE deserves a "so what" from you?

Do you think you can raise kids using NONE of your time?

No one, except two childless posters seem to think that womyn with children are getting more and childess people are "discriminated" against. When I said what I did about the "crappy" shifts, I didn't mean it as mandatory, I would think people who don't have to raise little ones would CARE enough to take the OVERTIME shifts, but of course, they don't have to.

It sounds like a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me.

 

just maybe it's because of her attitude, or she complains all the time. Maybe she doesn't pull her own weight at work. Not saying those things are true of the OP, but the only coworkers I ever had who complained of discrimination were just outright incompetent and lazy, and heaven forbid someone more capable or more pleasant to work with get a promotion or a raise and they didn't! If it's really discrimination, call a lawyer, because that's illegal. But it isn't discrimination and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court over it. I highly doubt any of it has to do with her childless situation. Wonder how many days she's called in sick last year? How many coworkers does she make miserable by complaining about the "crappy shift" (those crappy shifts pay more per hour most places)? I'd bet that if someone got more of a raise than someone else, the employer has a really good reason for it, and not because "so and so has kids and needs the money"

 

Ah, the new variety of the Oppressed. The Double Income. No Kids, White Person.

 

Gosh sakes! Calm down.

1. Just because you haven't been discriminated against does not mean it doesn't happen to other people. Personally, I haven't struck this form of discrimination, but if you take what the OP says at face value, and if you assume nothing mamaboogie says it true, then the situation is wrong.

2. No I have never heard of a Mommy Track.

3. I was using the "parents charity etc" thing as an example. I was refuting your assertion that a childless woman automatically has more free time than a woman with kids. This is not always the case. I can work around my commitments, but not everyone can. Some people might have to go to Uni at set hours or something, is this not also worthy of other people working their shifts around? I was just trying to point out that children are not the only commitments people have. The so what means just that... so what that you do all that? So what that I do? What should any of that have to do with what hours we work?

4. The whole arguement has been about it being mandatory. Of course co-workers should help each other out. We all should.

5. Using CAPS every second word and indiscriminate use of the "bold" command does not give your arguement more weight. Of course it's a tempest in a teapot. That's what internet message boards are for.

 

Where was this said?

(OT, so I use all caps sometimes. >shurg>I get too lazy to use the Italics or Go Advanced button.)

I'll be happy to get you some info on the Mommy Track. Basically, it is Business's idea that womyn with children aren't worth their time, so they get "tracked" into lower paying jobs with little room for advancement.

FTR, I assume almost everything mamaboogie says is true. (that's a wink.)

 

What you say about the Mommy Track Maggie goes for the UK also. Only today I was watching a TV discussion where it was stated that mothers, and women of childbearing age are the most discriminated against group in the UK. Employers don't want to know. Very worrying for me as I have two daughters, university educated, and I'm wondering will they simply be 'passed over' because they're women.

 

how do people know discrimination is going on?

If they have actual proof they could sue the hell out of the company.

is it just infered that there is discrimination? I.e. America has never had a female president, thus America is a sexist, misogynist man loving, female hating society?

 

I have never been discriminated against for not having kids but it sure as heck changed when I had them.

It's really hard for mommies to get work these days. Especially if you are making the transition from STAHM to working mom. Employers see my parenting as being a minus versus a plus. They imagine me calling off because of the kids or *gasp* having to bring them in for a minute until their babysitter comes and gets them.

My availability is also changed. I don't want other people raising my children therefore I cannot and will not work 70 hour weeks. I can't go days without seeing my kids and when I am with them, I can't sleep all the time.

America is such a funky paradox..on one hand it preaches high family values where the kids are raised by the parents yet it forces parents to sacrifice family to pay the bills.

Another discrimination I face is when my girls and I go out to eat. I worked very hard at teaching my kids to act appropriately in a restaurant. Thy are excellent, better behaved then most adults. Yet, when we go out to eat, the host(ess) will stick us at a crappy table in the back corner near the kitchen because they automatically assume that my kids will be hellions. So we get terrible service just because I want to have a nice lunch with my children.

I hate when I see parents disregard rotten behavior in public. It ruins it for the rest of us.

 

When you have children, you will understand. How I am treated now as a mom and how I was treated without them is an astounding difference.

 

Ah.... thank you. Never heard the term before. And appologies about about the calm down bit, I seriously thought you were shouting.

 

Ok, you might wanna slap me cuz I'm another childless person, but I wanted to share my viewpoint.

My husband has been passed over for benefits at work (promotions or whatever) in favor of someone that had kids, simply because that person had kids. I can understand the employer's thinking, and I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing except...

It's not right. Yup, I said it. Why? Because you don't always know what's going on in a childless person's life. Yes, life is tons harder with kids than without kids, I know this even being childless, but that doesn't mean that a person with kids automatically gets the "my life is harder" award over a childless person in EVERY situation. The reason I know this is becuase I struggle with a chronic illness AND a disability, one that prevents ME from being able to work at all, and my husband works a job that doesn't pay much money, so we struggle financially. Add that to the fact that we have a lot of debt from medical bills due to me, and that he's had to take off work a lot in the past to care for me when I was sick because no one else could, he might as well have had a child. We don't have kids, but we needed the money every bit as much as the guy who had kids (and honestly did not deserve the promotions over my husband based on work merit). And like someone said, sometimes we have OTHER responsibilities that take the place that kids would, because not EVERY person with kids has those responsibilities ALSO. Many do, but not ALL.

So in my opinion, whether or not a person has kids should not have any weight on promotions, pay, etc because other life circumstances no less important than kids have no weight on it either. It should be all or nothing. And to be honest, employers cannot work around EVERYONE's problems. That's illogical. The most efficient way to run their business is to NOT dole out work-related responsibilities and benefits in relation to non-work issues of an employee's life. They should give the jobs, promotions, benefits, and everything else to a person based on their work performance and merits, and nothing else.

As for SHIFTS, hours, etc... that's different. That is the ONLY area I can agree with parents getting preferential treatments, because unfortunately we can't change the hours that kids go to school, or that doctor's offices are open, etc. So that being said, as long as the shift allowed me to still see my husband a bit every day, I would take a "shitty" shift so that a co-worker with kids could get the shift more ideal to care for her kids. However, give her a promotion over me or more pay just because she has kids and not because she does a better job, especially if I do a better job than her, I will NOT be happy. THAT's when it crosses over into "discrimination".

 

Nuthin personal at all, Kiz. I'm a bit of a nut. I do like a good argu...er em, discussion. I am, however, sometimes just too lazy to go advanced and get the damn italics, which is what I should do, so people don't think I'm yelling all over the place.

Sorry, too. I never meant you or anyone else any disrespect.

 

100% agreement. Bear and I and Sage went to a ritzy steak joint a few weeks ago, We couldn't get reservations at a cheaper place, so we just drove around, until someone had an opening (DuPage county has a LOT of resturants) They saw Sage, who is a really good kid, and put us WAY in back, in a "private room" all by ourselves. I am sure it was to keep us away from the main diners, but, it was kind nice, because it was just us. Only thing was, it was hard to get the wait staff, as we were in an isolated room. And, I prefer booths, and they told us there weren't' any open, and I saw them in the main room, but we were put in what Bear and I call "Kiddie Land" in the back.

Absolutely. Promotions and raises should have nothing to do with your private issues at all, because anything could happen in anyone's life. I don't think any of the parents are saying that parents should be treated better, in terms of raises or promotions ect.

I think your opinion on hours was very well thought out, Bree.

 

Here's some stuff, including new definitions, I got about the "Mommy Track." There is also an interesting article about it.

​

(Pronunciation Key)

mommy track
n.


A career path determined by work arrangements offering mothers certain benefits, such as flexible hours, but usually providing them with fewer opportunities for advancement.










Mommy Track

Definition
Damaging, dead end career status often afforded people with family responsibilities.

The Career Track Vs. The Parent Track

 

ROFLMAO

Seriously. I have been both a working single person with no kids and a working mom. I was offered promotions when I was single, with only me to take care of. I have not been offered one since. Why? Well, I think it has something to do with the fact that I have kids who get sick sometimes and have doctor's appointments and stuff.

Some people seem to feel that parents shouldn't be given a little flexibilty to meet the needs of their family. "That's not fair!" they cry, like a youngest sibling. But think about it. When they are not at work they are taking care of little people. Real live people who benefit from having parents available. Believe it or not, society as a whole benefits from parents being able to take good care of their kids.

When I was kidless, I actually didn't bitch about picking up shifts or swapping shifts with parents. Maybe it's because I grew up as the oldest kid in a single parent home. I just recognized that that's what adults do. They help out. They help other adults. I understood that I had more free time than parents did.

Someone was saying that kidless people might have to take care of aging parents. That's true. I bet, though, that any job that would let you take your kid-related needs into consideration would also see that as a worthwhile thing. In fact, when my mom's parents were sick and dying, she and her siblings were able to work something out with their jobs so that they could deal with it. It's not as if kidless people are these slaves held captive in the basements of their places of work, toiling relentlessly so that the people with kids can go to children's birthday parties.

 

I recently got fired from my job because my kids and I had a week and a half bout of sickness. First-I got this horrible stomach virus, then dd1 got strep and ear infections, then dd2 got bronchitis, then I got strep. The best part? I had enough sick days and vacation days saved up to cover my absenses AND medical excuses. But, a few months ago our director said that just because we have sick leave, we don't have the liberty to use it and if it affects our work, we risk termination. How's that for ya? Fired for having sick kids.

 

Sugrmag, that sucks! What an asshole your boss must be to do that. I hope you coughed on him/her.

 

Well, she is a 45 yo career driven woman. Which is fine-I don't have a problem with that, but she "doesn't get why I would want those THINGS (kids)". Directly out of her mouth. She doesn't understand what it's like to be a parent-what it's like to put your child's needs in front of your own. I don't regret for a second my choice of staing home with the kids while they were sick, even though I got fired. They needed me-no questions asked-I was there.

 

How near the top is your director? If you work for a BIG company, the head office HR department would be displeased to hear of your director terminating (or threatening) people for taking sick leave.

Edit:accualy, the HR office would be pleased to hear of it (esspecialy if they hear of it before the legal department), but displeased with your director.