Punished for Being Pregnant

Being pregnant -- from the vomitous first months to the cumbersome final stretch (unpleasant pun intended) -- is onerous enough without having to worry about getting sacked on top of it. In this month's Elle magazine, one writer details the abysmal treatment she received at the hands of her erstwhile feminist boss when she breaks the baby news, and how she is summarily passed over for an obvious promotion after maternity leave.

Unfortunately, even in these supposedly feminized times and in an era in which parenthood has become surprisingly chic, getting pregnant puts you on a swift path to workplace stagnation, disrespect, and in too many cases, flat-bottom-out demotion. A good friend of mine, call her Nadya (lest I sabotage her future employment plans forever), was working part-time last year when she told her boss she was expecting her second child. "Ohhh....," her (female) boss simpered with a pitying smile. "Well, you just don't know what life is going to be like after two kids. You'll probably be overwhelmed." Fast forward eight months, and the full-time spot that Nadya had been actively angling for -- for over a year -- the one that had been all but promised to her, was conveniently filled during the month after Nadya delivered. "How could I have known where you would stand when you returned -- if you returned?" her ostensibly sympathetic boss asked.

All of this falls under the new buzzphrase maternal profiling. The term was first coined (or perhaps popularized) by the very cool organization Moms Rising and has since been debated in the wider media. The New York Times Magazine named maternal profiling one of the Big Ideas of 2007. Over on Leslie Morgan Steiner's On Balance blog at the Washington Post, Morgan Steiner recently detailed some of the most common complaints:

"Pregnant women being fired for trumped-up reasons; interview questions designed to weed out mothers and other caregivers; performance reviews designed to eliminate those employees, whether or not work has actually been affected..."

This kind of mistreatment and discrimination is more objectionable than ever, considering trends in maternity leave. According to a report issued by the Census Bureau last month, two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2001 and 2003 worked during their pregnancy compared with just 44 percent who gave birth for the first time between 1961 and 1965. Women are hoisting their pregnant asses onto subways and commuter highways much more often than they did in the 1960s, and much later into their pregnancies. When my mother's water broke (with me) in her workplace elevator, a purple zebra may as well have spontaneously combusted in the office lobby. But today, women regularly work up to the day their babies are born, often penciling in C-sections to accommodate their sales calendar.

Yet while women overwhelmingly return to the workplace within a year after giving birth (83%) only 7 in 10 manage to retain the same pay, skill level and hours worked per week. Too often, both in high-paced corporate environments and in assembly line jobs, they are sidled over to the mommy track. For the former, desirable part-time jobs are elusive; for the latter, an undesirable cut in hours or a move to a less convenient schedule, is all too frequent.

Obviously, there's a lot that governments and corporations and individual bosses need to do to fix this mess. But I think it's time women (and come on, men too) started getting angry, loudly, about it. Too often, new mothers, vulnerable and sleep-deprived, inadvertently bend over backwards to acclimate to their workplace, grateful to have a job at all, let alone a bathroom stall to pump milk in. It's time we start to demand more (and for heaven's sake, not less).

Comments

[texanna]

So, sexism does still exist? Didn't these same young women decry this assertion when it was advanced by Sen. Clinton and other feminists from the 60's? Weren't we told that everything was great and we didn't know what we were talking about raising all of those old issues that just weren't relevant anymore? The other thing that I see missing from this article is any discussion of the father's role in this issue. Oh wait, that goes back to the sexism issue, doesn't it? Until women get as much respect as men do, everything we're associated with - from motherhood to teachers in public schools -- will be denigrated and devalued.

[Triangle1]

The problem is that many jobs require a big commitment from a person, and having a child becomes the new No. 1 priority in your life. Completely understandable of course. If I'm hiring an employee it's because I need a tough job taken care of. This means you can't stay late a few hours as needed, you'll be taking more personal days to deal with child illnesses and everything else that children demand, and there is always the lingering thought that you could just up and quit to stay at home. From the standpoint of a mother, they're trying to make it and have a demanding family life. From the employer's standing, they're trying to get a job done well in a competitive environment. If they think you could become a weak link, they're going to move you out of the position to hurt the company. Imagine you're the lead accountant and everyone needs to get paid. You disappear a couple weeks for maternity leave. You can't stay late because the kids need to be picked up, etc. etc. (Yes, I know you can hire a babysitter­.) But from an employer's standpoint this is risky and a bigger issue than just you as an employee.

[mccn]

I agree - I do understand the point, but I'm not sure that I can agree with all the anger. Certainly, in some cases, it's not fair to deny someone employment, promotion, or a raise. But I think that depends deeply on the individual person. When I worked at a law firm, there were three women who were mothers there. One worked part-time. I hated working with her - because she would leave for her part-time day off in the middle of a big deal, be entirely incommunicado, and then rage at you for not getting things done in her absence that she never told anyone about. IOne woman worked better and was in the office "full time" - but had to leave abruptly a lot when her daughter was ill, and on weekends, vacations, and after certain hours couldn't be reached, unlike all the rest of us - increasing the burden on other employees and again, making it well nigh impossible to get things done. I understood that these womens' children had needs, and they were a priority - but I was resentful that they had been given the positions they were in, and were totally unavailable to meet their obligations, because of them. I plan on continuing to work in a field where I'm choosing not to have children - because that would be incompatible with meeting my job responsibilities. I think if you have children, you need to understand that you can't meet certain job requirements, and

[Halsey]

Man...this IS a tough one..I am a woman..and yes..I would fear a new mother's ability to put in the hours in a high pressure job. I do think woman have to make a choice..I can't imagine having another person spend 9-10 hours a day with my new baby...so I could pursue my career...i­sn't being a mother the best career in the world? It should be.

I think the change needs to be that the moniker "stay at home mom"...los­e its derrogatory sentiment.­.it is THE most noble thing a woman can do. It is about free will...you have another child knowing it may impede your hike up the corporate ladder... there are consequences to everything­..I'm not saying it's fair..but life is not fair. A child is the ultimate gift...

[klmebane]

while i see where you are coming from i have two comments. first not all women can be stay at home moms for a myriad of reasons. personally, i would go crazy if i had to spend all day every day with only my child for company and conversation, but also many women HAVE to work, because otherwise the family can't eat.

secondly, i believe ms. paul's point is that we shouldn't have to choose. it shouldn't have to be either mother or woman with a job, and frankly, in today's economy, that is becoming less and less a possibility. i love my daughter, but i also love the feeling of self sufficiency that comes from knowing that i can put food on the table. i know many women with children who have full time jobs, go to school, and care for their kids. its stressful, but if a woman is capable of that balancing act she should be able to do it if she so chooses. this is why there should be laws regarding a standard length of maternity leave, and fathers should get it too, because they need to be involved with their children as well. there should be laws against discriminating against a woman because she is pregnant, or already has children. ideally every woman could choose if she wanted to work or stay at home with her kid(s), no one should be forced to do both because otherwise they can't survive. but that is exactly what happens in our current society. its so sad.

[True]

Women should be entitled to come back from maternity leave to the same job and wage. If they then continue exceptional performance, then they should still be seen as deserving of a promotion.

They do not deserve a promotion, or even deserve the same job, if their performance is adversely affected by family duties for an unreasonable amount of time. I doubt even the EU forces companies to promote mothers whether or not they are performing sufficiently.

[1will]

Well said.

[Pandu]

A.K.A... being expected to take care of one's baby.

A child IS more important than a job.

[klmebane]

a child is a job in and of itself pandu, but what about the families that NEED both incomes to pay the rent? a job is always important because it helps one to take care of their responsibilities. there are women who can take care of their children AND work a traditional job.

[WIpatriot]

If you need both jobs to pay the rent, then you shouldn't be popping out babies that you can't afford to take care of, or move out of that $1M home that your high potential, carreer path job iisn't paying well enough to own.

[mccn]

I think there are different levels here getting conflated. I don't think anyone should have to choose between a child and a job, and I think that's probably an unpopular sentiment. However, I do think that it is reasonable to say that parents - shouldn't be just moms - shouldn't do certain jobs because of the demands of those jobs. Those jobs require that your job be your first priority. I am for making the workplace more friendly - but it's not fair to pay any parent the same amount of money for half the work of another employee because they had children. I think a better choice would be to structure jobs so that parents can do them and still care for their children - and leave those that don't to those without kids.

[1will]

Are these women returning to work putting in the same hours as before they left? If they went from 60 hour weeks to 40 hour weeks while their peers are still slaving away for that raise or promotion then their peers deserve the benefits of their hard work. There are jobs in which you are expected to work like a dog to make partner or get a promotion. Having a kid doesn't change that. So...a decision has to be made by a woman climbing the business ladder. Which is more important, a family or business success?

[ieatartichoke]

Your comment is exactly what is wrong with the workforce's treatment of mothers and mothers-to-be. It goes back to the unfortunate approach the American feminist movement of the sixties took: abandoning femininity in order to achieve equality. What the movement should have focused on was embracing femininity in its entirety and allowing femininity to be expressed publicly, including in the workplace.

I have most trouble with your statement "having a kid shouldn't change that." Yes, it should. Employees can take leave or shorter work hours when a loved one dies, and I'm pretty sure they are protected from discrimination due to this, just as one would be protected when taking sick leave. Why should this treatment not be afforded to pregnant women?

It is also unfortunate that you say "a decision must be made..." because that feeds into the erroneous notion that women must abandoned themselves as woman in order to achieve success and equality. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[1will]

I made no statement about a woman taking leave for pregnancy. I have no problem with someone taking off for pregnancy although I know women that immediately could no longer work as soon as the test came back positive. My post dealt with a woman working fewer hours after the baby being born. Unlke your example of sick leave or a leave for a death in the family a child is a long term life change. My post dealt with comparing a woman who previously worked 60 hour weeks cutting her work down to 40 hours and expecting the same rewards. Should a woman get the same rewards as her co workers that put in more hours just because she's had a kid? Bear in mind as great as it is to have kids they do nothing for a company's bottom line. You are rewarded for your work not your home life. Feminists seem to expect women to be treated as equeals until they want kids and then they should reap the same benefits as those that put in more work.
If a woman takes a couple of years off from work to raise the child should she return with the same seniority as those that have been slaving away for 4 or 5 years?

[1will]

Women don't have to abandon themselves as a women in order to achieve success and equality. I agree with that.
Women should not however expect the same raises, benefits and fast promotions after taking a few years off to raise children or working fewer hours than their peers (due to raising children). Feminists like to talk about how women don't rise as quickly in the working world as men. For the most part women do the lion's share of raising children. If a women cannot put in the same hours as a man or childless woman it's not discrimination that is keeping her from a promotion it's the work she is doing.

[dadw5boys]

EASY, Ask yourself what if it was you wife or mother on that job. What would she need?

[RumiSouth]

Well, this is what you get when an entire nation - at the social, economic, and political levels - is dedicated to selfish interest, obeying the daily dictum that we must live to work instead of the other way around.

Funny that the European Union has managed to surpass the US as the world's largest economy. All those social programs (especially laws that allow women to take a year off for maternity leave and return to the same job they left, at the same rate of pay) were supposed to drag them down into socialist poverty, but somehow that didn't happen.

[anon004]

I think what you have written is a no-brainer (especially having had the maternal profiling treatment myself), but you better brace yourself. There's something about writing about how it would be better if workplaces made more of an effort to accomodate parents that brings out the ugly. As near as I can understand it, our society already grants all kinds of priviledges to people with kids, and puts tremendous burdens on the child-free (funny, I didn't have children until I was almost 40, and I don't remember feeling the crushing weight of this burden). The argument usually boils down to, "you had your kids, now it's your problem." (I'm not sure how someone with this attitude expects to be helped when they are old and they need someone else's kids to be their doctors and caregivers. So much for the social compact.). I hope I'm wrong and that I won't see this kind of comment, but it's happened on every other blog of this type thus far . . .

[AllenKonigsberg]

The comparison to the 1960s seems odd -- you can't seriously believe that the workplace opportunities and conditions were better for women then than they are now? I remember seeing a magazine ad a few years ago, I believe from the early 1960s, which purported to depict a modern, liberated workplace by showing a secretary changing a baby's diaper at work --- HER BOSS'S BABY. "You've come a long way," etc.

Are women with infants at home as productive as those without? If not, should they get paid the same, and promoted at the same rate?

[PhillyQuaker]

I remember job applications from the late sixties, mid-late seventies contained a question:
What was the date of your last period.

Holy hell!