If 43% of females give up their original careers after childbirth, why should government pass over highly experienced males for a conveyor belt of inexperienced females who leave after a few years never to return?

HardLessontoLearn · 2017-11-02T23:23:19+00:00

I'm not sure what your title has to do with the article. The 43% is discussed, but nothing about the government or passing over anyone.

I actually thought this was a rather fair article. The woman who wrote it has good credentials and a really respectable resume. Further, her main argument is:

To be clear, I feel no entitlement to have a business accommodate me just because I am a "high achieving" mom. After all, this is business. The role of business is to generate value for their shareholders. Full stop. Only when moms can show that there is true value to the work they can provide when they come back to the workforce will businesses reach out to us. I am not arguing that I am owed anything for past performance, only that I could potentially be a valuable player if work could be structured differently.

I know many will take offense to the idea of "structured differently", but if you read, she's just talking about closed-end projects with clear deliverables and milestones, posted as freelance or contract work.

She in no way says the companies have to or even ought to do this, or that these roles would only be for women, but that it would be a way for companies to capitalize (for less money because they wouldn't need to pay benefits) on highly experienced individuals who value flexibility over consistent full-time work.

Frankly, I think there are many roles already moving in this direction. Where temp labor is used for more menial temporary tasks, I've seen a number of contract roles used for more knowledge- and skill-specific tasks/projects. Companies get the expertise they want only for as long as needed and don't have to pay benefits or find a role for the individual when his/her contract ends.

I myself have taken contract work (on top of full-time work) that I did in the evenings in order to pay tuition. I know retirees who take contract work so that they can travel, but still make decent side money. I know a man who supports his family on contract work, allowing them the flexibility to travel frequently between projects. Many college professors (especially at the local colleges) take contract work to supplement lousy teaching salaries.

All things considered, I know any woman saying "structured differently" isn't going to perk ears in a positive manner here, but I think this woman very clearly saying she's not looking for entitlement and understands a business' objective is the bottom line should be considered. She gives a business-centered option and doesn't speak of it in a way that conveys entitlement.

My big question at the end of it was whether or not she was looking in the right places. The style of work she's talking about already exists.

There are women and articles to speak against, but I'm not sure this is one.

fengpi · 2017-11-02T21:46:28+00:00

It wouldn't be fair and equal to women if they weren't given endless perks, do-overs, mulligans, get-out-of-jail cards, free drinks, holidays and special goodie-bags to make 'em smile.

And if men don't like being butt-sexed in the process, they're Neanderthals who Don't Get Equality.

bullseyed723 · 2017-11-02T20:59:31+00:00

Further, why are scholarships given to women to pursue college? Huge chance it goes to waste if they decide to care for the house.

Demonspawn · 2017-11-02T22:15:49+00:00

Women are more important that the job.... the job should change to attract them than them change to attract the job.

WolfeBane84 · 2017-11-03T02:22:35+00:00

Because penis.

SpeaksTruthToPower · 2017-11-03T00:33:17+00:00

Beekuz eekwalitee! An' muh pay tree are key! /s

Comments