As a childfree female in a primarily-female career field currently (I'm an administrative aide), I do see a difference in pay when men come into a job identical to mine. They get paid a little better, my pay is still stunted. I have heard the reasoning of it being for maternity leave needing to be funded (temping costs, etc.), and I suppose this is reasonable.
My issue with it is that it assumes all women will have children. I get the reasons for it, and I think it is right that it should stay that way, but it is frustrating that I am stamped with "reproduction!" as inevitable. I think it winds down to the difficulties with sterilization for women, to me, because it's that inevitability. I do think, however, I should be able to use maternity leave for the time I take to get a hysterectomy if and when that time comes!
I do think, though, that maternity leave should have absolutely no effect on the difference between men and women's pay, because just as women are doomed to become mothers, men are doomed to become fathers, and when they are, they take a few days off for the birth, they take afternoons off for baseball games, come in late and run on low-energy because of late nights, and have, in the end, the same amount of time lost as a woman on maternity leave would.
Plus, they also don't take into consideration that these women who are so doomed to have children will have a greater demand on their income, whether they're part of a couple or not, and therefore should recieve the equal pay of their male counterparts in order to be able to fund babysitters & childcare, and a secure home, and without those things, they may have less and less time able to be spent working in order to care for their children.
In other words, the imbalance on any level is fail, and even though I'm childfree, I understand why there is an allowance for maternity leave, I just think it kind of sucks for those of us who get stuck with the babymaking label regardless of our inclinations.
It's times like this when I feel like pointing out that these things are so much simpler (non-issues, really) when you have socialism. My co-worker's child's health care doesn't effect my employer at all.
I also think if parental leave for fathers was used more, this would be less of an issue. In Sweden (I believe), there's a rule that if the 'minority parent' (usually, but not always, the father) does not take at least one third of the parental leave, the couple forfeits that time entirely. I'd like to see that spread to more countries. In Canada, where the mother usually takes one year on EI for the parental portion (more for medical, if needed), that would reduce it to two thirds of a year, still very ample. I understand the US doesn't typically offer much in mat leave, which makes pregnancy discrimination all the more perplexing to me. It doesn't seem like it would a very high cost to employers.
As childfree female, I don't mind that parents, male or female, get maternity/paternity leave. I think it's a great thing.
I do mind, however, that those without children are not normally given the same benefit of x time off for either medical or personal need that is socially understood as a need for parents. This includes childfree people taking care of elderly parents, ill pets, husbands/wives/partners, etc.
I think that parents choose to have kids and accept the responsibility thereof. That's fine.
I fail to see, however, why that choice essentially entitles that person to put in less time at work without comment if non-childed employees are not given the same privilege to take care of personal matters. (At this point, I don't just mean the child's doctor's appointments but school functions, etc.)
Unlike the previous commenter, if I have to have a hysterectomy, I do not want maternity leave to pay for it. I want the basic time off that every employee gets to cover that time off.
Commenting by HaloScan
