Natalie Thomas: Are You a Rachael or a Martha?
Have you experienced "Maternal Profiling"?
Filed under: Just For Moms, Work Life, Mommy Wars
You might be thinking to yourself, "What's maternal profiling?" According to that New York Times article on hot new words and catchphrases of 2007, maternal profiling is defined as "Employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children."
I had written about my experience with this in the past, but didn't know that Moms Rising came up with an official catchphrase for it. Some Googling lead me to this post by Kristin and then this article written by a blogger I had the great honour of meeting once: Cooper Munroe. It turns out that in some states it is legal for a potential employer to ask you whether you are married and have children, and then use that information when making their ultimate hiring decision.
Cooper writes, "The "bottom line," it appears, is a key factor when employers discriminate against mothers, driven by a belief that health benefits (if there are any) could cost the employer more if a spouse doesn't have insurance or if the woman is single, or that mothers are less productive."
In Canada, maternal profiling isn't so blatantly obvious because it's illegal. In fact, we have fantastic health and maternal benefits, as well as other key rights that Moms Rising is campaigning for in the States. Instead it happens in subtler ways, such as getting passed over for a big project or promotion. While this is also illegal in Canada, it's often difficult to prove and most women don't want to rock the job boat.
Aside from the fact that we're often tired and sometimes have to take days off to attend to sick kids, most moms I know are the hardest workers on the block. 40-60 hour workweeks, sometimes more, and then a full load of housework and childrearing. At a conference on motherhood I attended a while back, author Ann Crittenden compared the skill set acquired by parenting to those of highly skilled CEOs.
If we continue to punish working women for having (or desiring to have) children, what kind of world will this be a generation from now? Have you ever experienced maternal profiling?
I had written about my experience with this in the past, but didn't know that Moms Rising came up with an official catchphrase for it. Some Googling lead me to this post by Kristin and then this article written by a blogger I had the great honour of meeting once: Cooper Munroe. It turns out that in some states it is legal for a potential employer to ask you whether you are married and have children, and then use that information when making their ultimate hiring decision.
Cooper writes, "The "bottom line," it appears, is a key factor when employers discriminate against mothers, driven by a belief that health benefits (if there are any) could cost the employer more if a spouse doesn't have insurance or if the woman is single, or that mothers are less productive."
In Canada, maternal profiling isn't so blatantly obvious because it's illegal. In fact, we have fantastic health and maternal benefits, as well as other key rights that Moms Rising is campaigning for in the States. Instead it happens in subtler ways, such as getting passed over for a big project or promotion. While this is also illegal in Canada, it's often difficult to prove and most women don't want to rock the job boat.
Aside from the fact that we're often tired and sometimes have to take days off to attend to sick kids, most moms I know are the hardest workers on the block. 40-60 hour workweeks, sometimes more, and then a full load of housework and childrearing. At a conference on motherhood I attended a while back, author Ann Crittenden compared the skill set acquired by parenting to those of highly skilled CEOs.
If we continue to punish working women for having (or desiring to have) children, what kind of world will this be a generation from now? Have you ever experienced maternal profiling?
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Hot Maternity Denim
Find trendy denim looks that work great and feel comfortable throughout pregnancy.
-
Mompreneur Jennifer Strom Simonte of Belly Dance Maternity
Parents TV talks to Jennifer Strom Simonte, founder of Belly Dance Maternity, about her business and how she combines motherhood with her job.
-
Parenting and Careers: Catching Up After Maternity Leave
Upon returning from maternity leave, you are probably anxious to get up to speed quickly.Watch this video to learn a few steps you can take to make sure that happens.
-
Returning to Work After Maternity Leave
Is you maternity leave about to end? Get advice on returning to work and childcare choices in this short film.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
1-02-2008 @ 3:04PM
Melissa said...When I was in the US Air Force, my commander ordered our First Sergeant to call all the new moms in the squadron into his office for a meeting. (There were 4 of us who gave birth in a 4 month time period.) We were each "counseled" on ways to get out of our enlistments early without doing jail time.
It was one of the more blatant efforts to get us all out. There were other things, too, like refusing to let us wear maternity uniforms and calling people back early from approved additional leave after convalescent leave because, "(she'd) had enough time with her child." They couldn't push us out, because we'd technically done nothing wrong, but they sure tried to convince us to get out on our own accord.
And, before anyone asks, numerous complaints to all the right people did nothing about it. Typical. The experience left a very, very bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 3:26PM
lisa said...nope because i'm a stay at home by my own choice...it is the highest calling i could have ever answered and it in and of itself is a full time job and worth every penny it cost us to allow me that priviledge...and believe me it is hard for a 2 parent family to live off a 1 parent income but if i had worked ouside the home between child care expenses, gas to and from daycare and work there would not have been much left....i know some moms must work and some moms have true careers and it isnt fair to take away from what they do but lets face it when you are a mom working outside of the home your children still come first and should, which means taking off for sick kids or kids events and employers know that truth so even though it should not play a role, it does...employers want the best from their employees, their devotion, and parents cant be that loyal when they are having to meet the needs of their children....and that is what it boils down too
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 4:48PM
Karen said...Well...this will not go over well, but I do think employers can/should make decisions based on whether or not you are pregnant, have children or are planning on having children.
I think it IS reasonable to pay a working MOM that takes additional leave time LESS than a employee that is available at all hours, and costs the company less money. There are costs involved in training, replacing, lost productivity, etc.
It isn't personal...but it IS business. Businesses are in business to make money. You do not have the RIGHT to a job. You are worth (in $$) in comparison to others in the workplace. It has nothing to do with your value as a person, but your value in the workplace IS likely affected by your parenting decisions.
Now, it is DESIRABLE for employers to be mom friendly (IMO) and I would even support tax benefits to companies that are flexible, help with child care costs, etc. because I think it is beneficial for our society as a whole.
However, there are many men AND WOMEN out there that resent working mothers and resent having to pick up their slack. OF COURSE it is NOT ALWAYS the case and there are examples/exceptions to everything.
And with mandatory maternity leave laws, which are costly to a lot of businesses, I think it is reasonable for them to cosider the extra costs of young mothers/mothers to be. A lot of women are "worth" (employee wise) the extra costs, but not everyone is. (again - value to the company not value as a person)
Either way -- the role of parent is THE MOST VALUABLE job out there. Companies that can work with that, should IMO, but those that can't/choose not to for business reasons, should have that right as well.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 5:23PM
Lisa J. said...I think if the parental workload was shared more equitably between mothers and fathers it would help things, too. Plenty of couple split things 50/50, of course, and my husband and I certainly did, but it seems like the burden often falls on mothers to stay home with sick kids, drive them to appointments, etc. Why is that, even in this day and age? There are plenty of problems with the structure of the workforce too, but a more balanced division of labor could, in the big picture, ease the scrutiny that employers seem to be currently reserving only for mothers.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 5:28PM
CarolinaDivina said...i was fired from my job the day i came back from maternity leave - not for bad performance - but the reason i was given was because they were afraid that i was not happy - sure i was not happy - i had terrible nausea during my pregnancy - but i did not miss any days - i came to work every day and trained a new employee and got my work done AND helped move our entire department from one floor to another without any help - and mind you - i was boxking files and doing things i shouldn't have
so i asked myself afterwards - why did i have to be so honest? - the fact is - after three years working there i was comfortable enough sharing my real feelings about - i was comfortable because historically the job really went out of their way to take care of their employees - it was proven in the past and i had no reason to think that it wouldn't be the case later - my unhappiness was because i wanted more responsiblity or a challenge or something - so when i was fired - right at the height of the holiday break - the reason given to me was that i was unhappy
i mean - how obvious can you get
the fact is
they wanted to fire me because i just had a baby
employers should be honest about their requirements - just as an employee is
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 6:01PM
M4Mommy said...Shortly after I began working for my last job my direct supervisor took me to lunch. It happened with every new employee. As we walked across the park he flat out asked me if I had any plans to get pregnant. At that time I did not. I was recently married and was told getting pregnant would be difficult at best. So I told him, even knowing that his asking this was illegal in the state that I did not.
Well you can imagine his reaction when I told him less than a year later that I was pregnant. I had a long commute (2 hours one way) But I was never late. I scheduled all my obg appts for my lunch hour or after work. (my obg was right next door) But still they, the dept heads began treating me like crap. Didnt matter that I was there from 9 til 630 Monday thru Friday. That I worked my ass off. Didnt take cig breaks. Didnt disappear for extra long lunches. My ob would stay later to get my appt in if needed. Finally my blood pressure just got to the point where nothing would bring it down and she took me out of work. I never went back.
I can tell you though. when/if I do go back to work outside the home office. My husband and I will be sharing taking days off if our daughter gets sick or has an appt. I will not be sending her to school sick. I hate it when parents do that.. And so do the teachers. Daycare providers hate it as well.. for all those that drug the kid with a fever up before heading out the door.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 6:34PM
toni said...i was hired by my current company a year after my initial interview. they called me back after the person they hired instead of me failed at the job. one of the managers and i became friends and he told me the reason i was not hired originally was because i was a single mom and i was engaged so they couldn't "trust" that i'd remain with the company. 2 years later i'm still here and now i'm pregnant. i was afraid to say anything at first but it seems to be OK. my husband and i have decided that we will do everything we can for me to be able to stay home once our son is born. my direct supervisor would prefer i go part-time and work early AM's which would work with my husbands Chef schedule. i'm curious to see how the "company" responds to my direct supervisors request.....
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 9:38PM
CLM said..."I think it IS reasonable to pay a working MOM that takes additional leave time LESS than a employee that is available at all hours, and costs the company less money."
Huh? What sane employee is available at ALL hours?
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 9:15PM
SKL said...Absolutely yes. Even before my kids were home and while I was still working 80-hour weeks and producing by far more than others (as usual), they denied my bonus (which everyone who performs at all gets). Now they are graciously offering me the opportunity to go on part-time (half pay) provided I continue to do all the same administrative stuff as ever (usually at least 10 hours per week) AND increase my billable hours percentage to 10% more than everone else's. So I get to do nearly the same amount of work as the FATHERS who have jobs comparable to mine, yet get paid half of what they get, and probably lose my benefits and such. Yeah, right. God will deal with these people, I am done with them.
Reply
1-03-2008 @ 5:47PM
d. said...I think that Karen's comments are scary. That is the attitude of most workplaces and this won't change as long as that attitude is out there. How are workplaces to be family friendly when that kind of attitude is out there??
Wake up people it is 2008 now. It is not the 1950's where the men work and the women stay home. Why should a women be passed over for a promotion b/c of her gender and ability to get pregnant? Why should she be discriminated against and not have the same earning potential as a man? That is why there are anti discrimination laws etc to protect them.
I agree that it is the subtle things though, not getting the transfer or the promotion or whatnot that is discriminating against women now. In the long run though would not the promotion be best???
I got a transfer at work that was temporary and then I got permanent after they interviewed 28 people.......a week after I was permanent I announced I was preg. I saw the reaction from management. I would not have got it if they knew and it easily could have been explained away as someone else was more qualifed. I am taking my mat leave but now I am in that dept I plan to stay for many years to come. If I was at my old job, I would have to reconsider and the company would've wasted THOUSANDS of dollars on all the training I have attended in the last 5 years. THOUSANDS. So in the end they benefit, we both benefit. But if there were no anti discrimination laws, it may be different.
The workplace has a long long long long long way to come to respecting women and men's choices. Like making it acceptable for a man to take time off to take a child to the dr, or to stay home with a sick toddler, or to work part time to be able to do childcare. And adapting to and working with women to having flexible work plans and RESPECT.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 10:56PM
SKL said...I really resent the implication that mothers per se take more personal time than fathers. In my workplace the opposite is generally true. But the fathers are treated like great guys for being so good to their families, while the mothers are treated like slugs. Maternity is just another excuse to discriminate against women in general. My freakin boss (need I say male?) takes more vacation annually than my vacation and maternity leave put together, and never works more than eight or ten hours a day (don't get me started on my hours), yet he has the audacity to pretend he is doing me a favor by keeping me on the freakin payroll - for now.
I agree that if a woman actually does less work than others on the job, she should get paid less. By the same token, if she does more - or if a man does less - she should get paid more. Why is this latter example of objectivity / fairness rarely seen? A logical business decision is one thing, but in many if not most cases, it's simple gender discrimination.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 11:05PM
SKL said...Oh and I've never heard of an actual case of a man getting any kind of reprimand for taking off work for his kids. Aside from all the men I've ever worked with (who not only attend their kids' and wives' doctor appointments but moonlight as softball coaches, boy scout leaders, single dads who take days off work to take each kid shopping for school clothes each semester [what working mother that you know EVER got away with that], etc., etc.), my dad was always the one who took off work for us kids, and he never got any crap for it. Just lots of steady raises and promotions. Same with my brothers. So I don't know where people get the idea that men will get criticized more than women for taking time off to meet their kids' needs. More likely it happens now and then, and men see this as intolerable because they don't feel they should ever have to take any of the crap women take on a daily basis.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 11:52PM
Meagan said..."More likely it happens now and then, and men see this as intolerable because they don't feel they should ever have to take any of the crap women take on a daily basis."
Well they shouldn't have to take the crap we take on a daily basis. Neither should we!!!
Reply