leiafee wrote:From my point of view kids are fine when they’re other people’s but I’ve no particular interest in rearranging my life around one - so it makes steam come out of my ears to think that it’s even vaugely accepable that “well she’s statisically probably still capable of reproducing” should form any part of the decision making around my employabilty.
The things is @leiafee , when people think like that they're not actually thinking about reproduction or you as a female. They're thinking "might this person one day stop coming to work?" and considering that as the business risk it is.
To build on what @Flyingfemme said, it's still not easy when it happens in a big company with lots of resources. In such a company I run a team of four people - very specialised, very hard to recruit for, absolutely critical to the business, but we are non-billable so senior leadership tries to squeeze the cost of us down to a minimum. When I lose one to maternity leave, there's no chance of cover. Firstly I won't be allowed to recruit anyone (because it would cost money) and secondly even if I could, no-one with the skills and experience wants a one-year maternity cover contract. It was incredibly disruptive when it happened once and I hope it doesn't happen again.
It's all very well saying there should be provisions and there should be systems and we should all be able to find a way to make it work in the 21st century. But outside of some unrealistic theoretical examples, how does it actually work in the real world? The ask is a big one - to keep paying someone while they don't do their job for a fairly extended period of time and hold that job open for them. However you look at it that is going to be very expensive and very disruptive. The exact reason why
they're away from their job (as well as their gender) is largely irrelevant to the business impact.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.