Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

THANK YOU. And no, nobody would ever say that to a man in that situation, they would say "good for him for negotiating a bonus at the current company and a higher salary at the next."

You both are delusional. Your scenario has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. But here’s an apt comparison: a guy I work with got a raise/promo and then immediately took advantage of my company’s sabbatical leave and he’s now jotting around East Asia for 6 months. Literally everyone said WTF to him, and are still saying it about him. It’ll be tough for him to come back honestly because most people hate him. I guess we are all just man-haters though! Has nothing to do with what he did, just his gender!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

Why don't you stop giving out maternity leave, instead of flagrantly violating the law?

NP. Age discrimination is impossible to prove. A 30 year old woman and 43 year old woman apply for the same job. The 43 years old has 18 years experience and the 30 year old has 8 years experience. Every time I will hire the person with the most experience. In no way is this is not age discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

Why don't you stop giving out maternity leave, instead of flagrantly violating the law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

One woman? And then you assumed all women would do that?
Also when a man does that is he just smart and looking out for his family? I assume that you're stating then that no man in your organization's ever taken paternity leave?
Does a woman who uses maternity leave have an obligation to stay x amount of time with her employer who gave her maternity leave? Is she not allowed to go to a new job or she just not allowed to quit?
And if her child has special needs or feeding issues or other health issues should she go back to work and give you half ass or should she just never worry about it and just be a corporate shell while she's in the office? Where is that person in fact doing the best that they can and realizing that they are priorities are elsewhere and to open up the position to someone who can currently do the job?
And are benefits actually compensation for jobs that are done or for work yet to do? Meaning when you use your benefits just like any other benefit are you then obligated to the work in the future or are those benefits there because of the work that you've done?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Yes I had a woman pull this crap on me.

I stopped hiring women under 45.

And yes, I am a woman.

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

NP

This is different. Men and women equally can do the scenario you stated, so no one is biased against men or women because of this reason. But leaving after having a baby? That's a 99% female response. How many men do you know that quit their job after their first kid?

The solution is to get men to stay home as often as women so that anyone of childbearing age is an equally risky employee, but that's not easy.

Men are far more likely to be workaholics. Women work fewer hours and value work/life value more than men, whether or not they have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

THANK YOU. And no, nobody would ever say that to a man in that situation, they would say "good for him for negotiating a bonus at the current company and a higher salary at the next."

You both are delusional. Your scenario has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. But here’s an apt comparison: a guy I work with got a raise/promo and then immediately took advantage of my company’s sabbatical leave and he’s now jotting around East Asia for 6 months. Literally everyone said WTF to him, and are still saying it about him. It’ll be tough for him to come back honestly because most people hate him. I guess we are all just man-haters though! Has nothing to do with what he did, just his gender!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

NP

This is different. Men and women equally can do the scenario you stated, so no one is biased against men or women because of this reason. But leaving after having a baby? That's a 99% female response. How many men do you know that quit their job after their first kid?

The solution is to get men to stay home as often as women so that anyone of childbearing age is an equally risky employee, but that's not easy.

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

THANK YOU. And no, nobody would ever say that to a man in that situation, they would say "good for him for negotiating a bonus at the current company and a higher salary at the next."

You both are delusional. Your scenario has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. But here’s an apt comparison: a guy I work with got a raise/promo and then immediately took advantage of my company’s sabbatical leave and he’s now jotting around East Asia for 6 months. Literally everyone said WTF to him, and are still saying it about him. It’ll be tough for him to come back honestly because most people hate him. I guess we are all just man-haters though! Has nothing to do with what he did, just his gender!