Possible Debate inspired by Desperate Housewives.

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Okay we've gone several pages w/o it getting rowdy and I would prefer to see it that way. I think thus far we've had a great exchange of ideas.

I would also like to state that whether working for a man or woman I've never noticed a difference in whether they were better or worse to work for. Currently my manager is a guy and he is extremely understanding to all employees needs for personal time.

~Amanda

I did not write my post to set up an argument. Not sure why you thought that. Anyways, reality does hurt when said out loud. What I wrote in my post is how I see the corporate world in regards to working mothers. Not very understanding. I have worked for women and men and would work for a man anyday. The women I have worked for are always trying to prove themselves. Also if they have no children, watch out.

 

[Daxx]

You know, after I posted, I sat here and thought about when I had a different career. My group's secretary had 2 small children and always seemed to be "out" b/c of something or another (illness, class play, etc.). I would always get frustrated, inwardly, but never said anything to her about it. I figured she was entitled to use her personal time as she saw fit. I used to beotch about it and, I remember saying "Yeah, I can't get off for XYZ, but SHE can get off for anything that involves her kids" to my single, girlfriends (who didn't work in my office).

It wasn't until I became a parent that I understood why she took the time off. When I was single w/o kids, it was a frustration but as a parent, I began to understand what the "big deal" was about. However, I was fortunate enough to quit my job to stay at home w/my child. I subbed when he was in Kdg. but didn't go back to work until he was in 1st grade.

I am only thankful that I never blasted my group secretary for her absences and that I held my tongue. You never know what it's like to be a parent until you become one. Now I understand the importance of being there for those little things. And, I see the disappointment on my Kdg. students faces when their parents don't show up for class things.

 

[goofygirl]

I work for a women who has no children.I also think when you work for a women with no children it's worse than a man. They have to always prove themselves.

Wow. Just wow.

And how do you know why she chose not to have children? You automatically assume its because she's on a power trip and is obssessed with money. Stereotype much?

Maybe she's like me and just plain DOES NOT LIKE KIDS and just does not want them in her life. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Hhhhhmmmm?????

Your post just gave complete definition and meaning to Tnk's comments that it is the childless woman who really have something to prove!!!!

Maybe there is something true about the whole stereotype thing of childless woman not understanding and being very adversary to those of us (the huge majority) who do have children to love and provide for.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Hey everybody... Methinks it is a good time to start some popcorn!!!!

 

[Christine]

I guess as a working mom, I have been lucky to have never had a job that is a problem. I have a job that is fairly laid back--nothing is high pressure. If I can't make it to a meeting because my kids are sick, then they just reschedule the meeting or it can go on fine without me. If I am out of the office, no one ever has to cover my work--it just gets done the next day. There have been a VERY small number of times that it *has* been critical that I be there. During those times, I have either found a way to go to work (husband, my mother, my father, etc). While my kids are one of the most important thing in my life, my job is also my livelihood and sometimes it does take a priority over a class field trip. Because----I have to pay the mortgage. I cannot afford to lose it. So, I don't take off unless it is an absolute necessity.

On the other hand, we have working moms that take off for EVERYTHING. Fortunately, this does not impact others in the office but it is noted when it comes to promotions. Not that you have to take off, but if it is done excessively.

I'm not sure I could take a job, though, where every absence due to sick children was "groaned" about at the office. I would be a wreck.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's still way more than other places. Most I've know you get 6 weeks for a "normal" delivery, and 8 weeks for a c-section.

Don't know where Amanda's original post on that is....but when I worked--the 6 and 8 weeks paid was paid by short term disability b/c you were recovering from childbirth.

The fact that Amanda gets 8 weeks paid leave for an adoption is AWESOME.

FMLA allows for the time off, but doesn't guarantee payment.

I don't see the inequality--since the adoption doesn't usually include recovering from a major medical (yet normal) event.

 

[goofygirl]

Hhhhhmmmm?????

Your post just gave complete definition and meaning to Tnk's comments that it is the childless woman who really have something to prove!!!!

Maybe there is something true about the whole stereotype thing of childless woman not understanding and being very adversary to those of us (the huge majority) who do have children to love and provide for.

If I see the childless by choice being attacked or stereotyped, I'll come to their defense, just as YOU would come to the defense of yourself or any other parents being who are being attacked and stereotyped for simply being parents.

If that is "being adversary" and "having something to prove", then so be it.

 

[septbride2002]

I did not write my post to set up an argument. Not sure why you thought that. Anyways, reality does hurt when said out loud. What I wrote in my post is how I see the corporate world in regards to working mothers. Not very understanding. I have worked for women and men and would work for a man anyday. The women I have worked for are always trying to prove themselves. Also if they have no children, watch out.

I was no accusing you of writing your post to set up an agrument. I was trying to warn off any posters who might be offended of your comparision between men and women as supervisors and let that show in their post. Your post had lots of flame worthy comments and I want to keep the thread civil so that it will remain open.

~Amanda

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Wow. Just wow.

And how do you know why she chose not to have children? You automatically assume its because she's on a power trip and is obssessed with money. Stereotype much?

Maybe she's like me and just plain DOES NOT LIKE KIDS and just does not want them in her life. Nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids. To say you don't like them tells me you probably wouldn't be a very sympathetic women boss. Thus proving part of my point. We all started out at one time as a child. We should keep that in mind. Think about how we would have liked our mom or dad home if they worked all the time.

 

[septbride2002]

Hhhhhmmmm?????

Your post just gave complete definition and meaning to Tnk's comments that it is the childless woman who really have something to prove!!!!

Maybe there is something true about the whole stereotype thing of childless woman not understanding and being very adversary to those of us (the huge majority) who do have children to love and provide for.

There are also women out there who suffer from infertility and cannot have children. And yes I do think it is stereotypical to paint childless women with such broad strokes. Not every women CRAVES children and I think this would be a good time to point out that we should all try to remain respectful of on another (this is not just pointed at your Wishing).

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids. To say you don't like them tells me you probably wouldn't be a very sympathetic women boss. Thus proving part of my point. We all started out at one time as a child. We should keep that in mind. Think about how we would have liked our mom or dad home if they worked all the time.

so for a boss to be truly sympathetic they have to be a parent?
And what about sympathy for those of us who are child free? If being a parent was a requirement for being a supervisor then Child free women would always get the short stick.

Anyone else wonder if these women have "something to prove" because they have to work harder then a man to get recognition and also break the stereotype that women need time off for kids?

~Amanda

 

[Jennifer S]

so for a boss to be truly sympathetic they have to be a parent?
And what about sympathy for those of us who are child free? If being a parent was a requirement for being a supervisor then Child free women would always get the short stick.

Anyone else wonder if these women have "something to prove" because they have to work harder then a man to get recognition and also break the stereotype that women need time off for kids?

~Amanda

I don't think Tink meant all bosses but just was saying Goofygal was probably not sympathetic because she said she didn't like kids. Just my 2 cents

 

[septbride2002]

I don't think Tink meant all bosses but just was saying Goofygal was probably not sympathetic because she said she didn't like kids. Just my 2 cents

So this brings us full circle to the original question - is it okay for bosses to be over sympathetic for children related events and let mothers off easier from work? Or is it not?

I'm sorry but unless it was planned in advance or an emergency I do not think that a mother's needs override my need for a day off, or for flex time.

~Amanda

 

[robertsmom]

Yes but then the big bad boss has to enforce the policy and who wants to tell mommy she can't leave work 30 minutes early to watch Joey's T-ball game? Instead they let the mom flex the time - while I may want to leave 30 minutes early because I want to get my haircut and that is the only time available and am told no. That isn't really fair.

~Amanda

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but life isn't fair. Sometimes it's unfair in your favor, sometimes not. That's just the way it is.

 

[va32h]

Well I decided to call my two sisters, who do not have children (I won't say child-free because they wanted to, but couldn't) and asked their opinion.

I was really surprised to hear them say that they agreed that employees w/o children are excessively called upon to cover for those who do.

One sister commented specifically that she was expected to travel more, work longer hours, and cover holiday periods, because she did not have children.

I asked her if she didn't feel that being able to travel and work extra hours hadn't improved her career - and pointed out that I would consider traveling for work to be a perk, not a burden. She acknowledged that yes, in some ways her career did advance because she had more flexbility - but was still stuck on the holiday issue.

The other sister said that, speaking as a boss, it frustrated her to have women asking for time off for various family activities, leaving her to worry about how to keep the office covered. And if she said "no", to such requests, employees became resentful and surly.

I did try to point out that employees can be resentful and surly, even if they don't have kids!

It seems to me though, that this shouldn't be an employees w/kids vs employees w/o kids issue.

Employees shouldn't be setting policy - management should. The company should have a policy in place regarding flexible time off that is equitable for everyone. Holidays should be rotated, and travel opportunities (or burdens) offered to everyone who is qualified.

 

[Bichon Barb]

So...

How about if all employees mind their own business and worry about themselves and not their peers? Why not let the supervisors decide who are the better and more devoted employees?

If a childless employee is up for review or going for a promotion, why not remind the supervisor how you rarely leave early or take personal days, etc.? Sell your positive qualities and stop worrying about what others are doing.

(BTW, way back BC I worked in a law firm and witnessed how nasty a couple of people could be to working moms. I also saw things like a mother who left early to get ready for her son's birthday party. LOL.)

 

[Jennifer S]

So this brings us full circle to the original question - is it okay for bosses to be over sympathetic for children related events and let mothers off easier from work? Or is it not?

I'm sorry but unless it was planned in advance or an emergency I do not think that a mother's needs override my need for a day off, or for flex time.

~Amanda

I think it needs to be a case by case issue. If a mom works really hard gets her work done and doesn't abuse it then I think it's OK. Same for you - if you work hard, get your work done then you should get compensated equally. Sounds great in theory but life is not always fair or equal.

That is why i choose to be a SAHM. I didn't want my mothering to interfere w/ my job. I am very fortunate to be able to do this. Not all moms are as lucky soI would cut a mom some slack but I hope I would try and reward a loyal, hard working employee too. ex.- promotions, nice raises etc.

So the other question you had - Does a boss need to have kids to be sympathetic? No but I think it helps to see the full scope of what a working parent goes through.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So this brings us full circle to the original question - is it okay for bosses to be over sympathetic for children related events and let mothers off easier from work? Or is it not?

I'm sorry but unless it was planned in advance or an emergency I do not think that a mother's needs override my need for a day off, or for flex time.

~Amanda

My only comment is that FMLA allows for 12 weeks...paid or non-paid is up to the employer. So in terms of illness or other medical need--the parent trumps the non-parent.

For events---if I have personal time available and my boss allows me to use that--it is between myself and the boss, even if others have to support the team in my absence.

It was this way pre-kids....and for the 8 weeks that I did return to work.

My work was of a nature that I got it done efficiently and most of my data was accessable to those who needed it.

However--abuse of that--isn't fair to anyone.

I've seen a childless employee use lots of personal time (but on company time---she charged the program and not her bank of hours) for things. It would be one thing if she did her work. But she was an idiot and was unable to learn her job let alone do her job in what precious time she actually spent working.

I think it is easier to target the working mom....but just like they are stereotyping the childless boss...they are stereotyping the mom--BIG time.

Difference between those taking care of personal business and a slacker. I'm afraid that the "working mom" in general is being characterized as a slacker....in relation to this discussion.

With cell phones--it isn't as though someone who stepped away from the office couldn't be contacted. They didn't go to Antartica.

 

[Bichon Barb]

So this brings us full circle to the original question - is it okay for bosses to be over sympathetic for children related events and let mothers off easier from work? Or is it not?

I'm sorry but unless it was planned in advance or an emergency I do not think that a mother's needs override my need for a day off, or for flex time.

~Amanda

It's up to the boss to decide how valuable that employee is. Not my business. (But it still might piss me off a bit. )