[kefka]

> Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

I'm for equality, and the area around FMLA is not equal, by any means.

That issue is caused by the risk that women of child-bearing age have with regards to our laws on FMLA. Women (of child bearing age) are an inherent risk with strong legal ramifications if ignored. Once pregnant, they can effectively get up and leave their position. Depending what they were doing, can cause significant team problems. And the employer is required to provide their or a similar position back when they return. I'm sure the actuaries have calculated that risk appropriately.

To fix that, all gov't needs to do is apply FMLA to all parties in a relationship when one in it is pregnant. Then the actuarial cost equals itself out. Equality is approached.

[jkyle]

You won't hear any dissent from me when it comes to improving our lack luster family leave support.

However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

Further, U.S. law (as abysmal as it is) on family leave is egalitarian. Both men and women may take up to 12 weeks leave in a 12 month period after the birth. Two states, including CA, extend 6 weeks of subsidized pay to both men and women. Most companies extend the same "bonding period" allowance to both men and women (generally taken out of their base vacation).

The only exception I've seen that women get aside from men is an extra couple of weeks if they have a cesarean. But again, this is entirely up to the private company issuing the benefits. The state is equal in the benefits it allots.

Thus, dismissing a woman through this verbalization is more about stereotyping than any reality with regard to disparity in benefits. And the perceived risk is as much about cultural and corporate biases on care taking. Which is why it is a microagression.

[kefka]

> However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

I've never seen someone be that crass. Live and learn, I guess.

I was referring to managers and business people making choices with these actuarial decisions in mind. Of course they aren't going to say "you there is a woman, you sure serious about working?"... Instead, they're going to be paid lower wages and passed up on promotions. My justification is that this is the cost of the risk associated related to the FMLA.

[jkyle]

I'm confused how it's associated with the FMLA. The FMLA benefits apply equally to men and women (12 weeks unpaid in 12 months).