Non-working working women
Bookworm on Oct 04 2006 at 8:45 am | Filed under: Feminism
European feminist activists are apparently terribly upset that the European Court of Justice had the temerity to hold that it’s okay to pay people more for more time spent on the job, even if that affects women who take time off for children. The IWF, of course, has a good take on the story.
Related posts:
- Who is this man and why is he working for the UN
- African-American men and women
- Women, stop your whining
Email This Post To A Friend
22 Responses to “Non-working working women”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My initial gut reaction is to agree but I changed my mind after reading the following on IWF, “The landmark ruling, described as the most important sex discrimination judgment for ten years, means that companies can legally pay some workers more for length of service * * * ”
I think pay should be commensurate on performance not time in service. This one of the biggest problems with unions; workers are NOT interchangeable as the unions would have us believe. If a person with less time does the job better or more efficiently than the “old timer,” then they should receive the higher wages. This would also extend to women who took maternity leave.
I’m afraid I have to clarify one issue. If a woman returns to the workplace after a lengthy hiatus for childbirth/rearing, she could be hired at a lower level but her pay should be adjusted to match her capabilities at her performance review. Time in service should be the last consideration to be used, possibly when evaluating two people of relatively equal capabilities (and a good boss knows how to effectively evaluate their employees.)
In the old days, women wanted equality, now it seems they want entitlements. Decisions affect everything we do. Women who want to opt out to raise their families, must make a trade off. Only the worst lefties think of workers as interchangeable cogs in a machine. See Dr. Zhivago for a great reference shot of that kind of machine.
There is practically no line of work that hasn’t changed at least somewhat and most have changed quite a lot, so somebody coming back to work after a substantial period of time, couldn’t be worth what those who’ve stayed au currant in their line of work.
Can’t have both ways ladies.
Kevin: I agree with you when skill and product output matter. But what about the woman who works an assembly line job where showing up is one of the primary qualifications, since skill and output can be mastered in a matter of days? In that kind of job, it seems to me that showing up should be rewarded. The man who shows up for 20 years should see some benefit over the woman who shows up intermittently for 10.
Concerning “The man who shows up for 20 years should see some benefit over the woman who shows up intermittently for 10.” This opinion shows how little our society really values children. The woman who stays home with her children should make more not less than the man who has merely gone to work, if children are really important. Teachers and day care workers should make more than lawyers and secretaries. I know this sounds like nonsense. But so is saying we value our children. And it goes along with the teacher who took off to walk. She’s “bad” for doing so–selfish even. The “good teacher” stays with her class. But the “good mom” who stays home get a monetary penalty. Do what?? Which way is it? You seem confused.
I agree with you Bookworm. While I wasn’t thinking about that particular scenario, that could be an instance of a situation that I was trying to cover in the last sentence of #2.
In a more general sense, I was thinking along the lines of skilled labor but I would still have to give some consideration to quality of work each worker did on the assembly line. While they may not be able to increase their production due to a set line speed, there are situations where one individual just does a better job at their station than another. That equates to a better quality product or less rework which, in turn, means more profit. That person should reap the rewards of their diligence.
I’ve had experience with bottle production lines and it doesn’t take long (usually within a couple of hours) to identify the better workers. Again, it comes down to having a fair and capable manager to make the evaluation (and that may be asking a bit as I’ve had some real loosers as I was making my way through the ranks.)
Helen–I must disagree.
Yes, being a stay-at-home mother is probably one of the hardest jobs there are but neither society, nor future employers owe her any compensation for having made that choice.
Sadly, our society confuses the word “work” with being gainfully employed. Stay-at-home mom’s work very hard. “Are you a working mother?” is the stupidest question imaginable.
And Bookwrom, You have an exciting, thought-provoking blog. Hope I haven’t caused you any grief.
Helen-
Amen to the “working mother” comment. My mom was a stay-at-home mom and I know for a fact that she outworked my dad. He got to come home and rest after 5:00 while my mom made dinner, cleaned the dishes, prepared for tomorrow, etc. She usually got to sit down with the family around 8:00–at least until it was time to get us kids to bed!
[...] [Read more and discuss this article with BookWorm] [...]
Helen: it’s not about “good” or “bad.” It’s about choices. We all make choices, which is part of living in a free country. Sometimes, our choices are limited by economics, but that’s life. The government cannot equalize all things, and all efforts in that direction have been dismal, often violent and bloody, failures. Nor can we expect private enterprise to bear the burden of choices. Life is tough, but the best we can do is hope for a highly functional system that allows for the maximum number of available choices for the maximum number of people. Stifling enterprise will have the opposite effect.
Great discussion, Bookworm. But I’m making a choice (yes, I highly value our right to choose) to go and organize some clothing, etc. to take out of town on Friday. I’ll be back later. BTW, I added you to my blogroll. (I heard about your blog from Jack at New Snipet. We’ve had some great discussions. I’m not afraid to express my opinion nor to change it. My education will be over when I’m dead, but it surely isn’t now!) And just for the record, have you considered that your daughter’s teacher responded to your daughter not you because she was annoyed that you went over her head? She was apparently open to the kids and felt you were accusing her of something she didn’t feel was wrong.
Without doubt, “Mom” is the hardest job I’ve ever had. Nevertheless, I can’t think of a way a society can pay women for this work and still be economically and socially functional. It’s just part of the female biological package. Or, one could say that it has a huge compensatory reward — just not an economic one. I may not be raking in the bucks for raising my kids, but my reward is to create two loving, intelligent, highly functional human beings who will contribute greatly to the human race. That’s a pretty big payback for the effort.
Why does the idea that society and the government should “subsidize” women breeders, seem a little bit creepy?
I know this sounds like nonsense.
It actually sounds like a particular brand of thinking, which has occured before, so it is nothing new under the sun.
The government cannot equalize all things, and all efforts in that direction have been dismal, often violent and bloody, failures.
They actually could do that, you know. But the question is, should they do it, and are you willing to tolerate the totalitarian/police state that would be required for such equalization?
Y–
What is this “subsidize women breeders” nonsense?
The last time I checked, there was only one woman since the dawn of time who didn’t have some man’s cooperation to procreate.
This will be coming less and less of an issue in Europe because the birth rate there is in free-fall.
Hi Bookworm. Who’s Don Quixote? And why call him an “attorney” and yourself a “lawyer.” Feminism that ain’t!
Y— I think part of the problem is that there are actually people out there who think that a price can be placed upon the value of mothers. And that bothers me as much as it seems to bother you.
The value of a mother is redeemed in the success of her children. And I don’t mean financial success, I mean success at life. It’s just one of the things a mother DOES. If she wants to place a price tag on it, she probably shouldn’t be a mother. She’s be setting a rotten example for her children.
To me, placing a price on a mother’s work seems… well, mercenary.
Are financial rewards more important than the success of your children? I think not.
What is this “subsidize women breeders” nonsense?
The last time I checked, there was only one woman since the dawn of time who didn’t have some man’s cooperation to procreate.
The last time I checked, I was talking about the government paying women employees more money and benefits for being women who have produced children. Which is subsidization, by the government specifically. Or by society.
This is the subject under meta-discussion here after all, barring unforseen quantum effects.
Concerning “The man who shows up for 20 years should see some benefit over the woman who shows up intermittently for 10.” This opinion shows how little our society really values children. The woman who stays home with her children should make more not less than the man who has merely gone to work, if children are really important. Teachers and day care workers should make more than lawyers and secretaries.
You did read Helen’s comment, did you not, Trish?
This is not nonsense, Trish. Not my position at least, although you are free to challenge anyone else’s position as being nonsense.
Is “feminism” still a word that means anything? I thought Billy Clinton pretty much put an end to that.
“This is the subject under meta-discussion here after all, barring unforseen quantum effects.”
Ho-hum…reminds me a bit of the line from Pink Floyd’s, “Comfortably Numb;” You’re lips move but I can’t hear what you say.