Expecting more for pregnant women

A B.C. woman who was fired after announcing she was pregnant was awarded a $26,000 compensation for discrimination after her case went to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal ordered Traveland Leisure Vehicles to compensate Hailey de Lisser $21,000 for lost wages and maternity benefits and $5,000 for injury to her dignity and feelings.

It’s great that this woman was vindicated, but $26,000 seems a pretty paltry settlement.

I guess breaking the law by firing a pregnant part-time worker isn’t considered as serious as firing a pregnant full-time employee. Considering how many women work part-time while their children are young, that could leave a lot of women with less protection.

Canada's birth rate is increasing, but between bad employers, lack of affordable day care and the wage hit women take for spending time at home with a newborn, it’s amazing anyone is deciding to have children.

Comments

[Wally Keeler]

I stand 100% behind a woman's free choice to come to term or not. Every man, spouse, lover, sperm doner, and society at large have no choice but to pay for HER free choice.

Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Pumping irony.

[Jennifer]

That's sort of like saying old people shouldn't have to pay education taxes, which is fundamentally ridiculous. Just as every society benefits from an educated population, every society benefits from a parent being home with a baby, especially in that first year. Oh, the benefits bestowed to stay home in that first year aren't solely the domain of the mother, which is probably why the larger portion of the 50 weeks is deemed PARENTAL leave.

There is a great deal of disincentive to stay home, even for that first year --- making the move to 55% of your income is painful for some, not doable for many. We might have choice, but it can be an awfully hard one.

[Wally Keeler]

Old people (as well as not old people) have a say in how their education taxes are spent. They have a say in the teacher/pupil ratio. They have some empowerment over choices to be made, curriculum and other factors.

A female has the free choice to bring to term a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome -- society pays for her free choice to do that with her baby. The same for females who produce crack-addicted babies, or babies with HIV. Or even the lesser consequences of females who smoke during pregnancy. Those are her free choices which have known consequences that all society have no free choice but to pay.

Old people have a choice to not have crack addicted teachers, or alcoholic teachers, or teachers smoking cigarettes in the classroom.

There is the exclusive free choice of a young woman to birth a child AND the father is excluded from every aspect of that choice with the notable exception of paying for the child's welfare for at least the next 18 years. So every woman has a free choice over the birth of a child AND a woman has a free choice concerning the next 18 years of a father's life.

Several years ago in the U.S. there was a case of a young woman who had lied (she admitted to it) to her boyfriend that she was taking contraceptive measures. The court decided the young man must pay for the next 18 years on the ground that the child should not be held responsible for the mother's behaviour.

I'm quite OK with this judicial decision. My counsel to my son was that under no circumstances, regardless of his feelings or her avowed feelings, should he ever trust any woman regarding contraceptives. The consequences of trusting a woman in this regard can have dire consequences, so take your own contraceptive measures and if she doesn't like it, she has a free choice of her own to make.

There is the recent case of a "father" who many years later found that the children he had been diligently and responsibly supporting in every regard was not his child. The mother ludicrously claimed that she had no recollection of being porked by another man while married to the dupe husband. Nevertheless, the court was right in making the duped "man" continue supporting the children.

The lesson to be learned for my son, was to never trust a woman in regards to the birth of a child and to always have a paternity test on the infant asap. The mother of the child has no right to prevent this procedure -- after all, she does allege that the man is a PARENT, so prove it.

These are vital matters, and I have consistently counselled my son and his male friends and acquaintances that a woman is never to be trusted in these particular matters, that they are to be responsible for themselves first and foremost.

It's sad, that in reproductive matters, a man with a profound responsibility for his own future, should regard every woman as an entrapment device, but that's the way it is.

If the zeitgeist regards men as spouse-beating, sperm-doner bank-accounts, then it is appropoetic that women should be regarded as entrapment devices.

[Wally Keeler]

Furthermore, if a young woman is not in any financial position to fully take care of a child, she should have the self-respect to not dump the responsibility of HER free choice onto others.

I made a free choice to have a child, and I lived up 100% and more to raise and educate (partly private schooling, and abroad) my offspring, as well as fulfill my 10 year obligation to sponsor an immigrant, and support my spouse to get her MA in Library Science at UofT and guess what? I did it without once sucking welfare or EI.

As you assert, it can sometimes be a hard choice. So I did it and one of the better spin-offs of having done so, is the opportunity to give attitude towards society and social activists who expect everyone else to pay for the irresponsible choices of others. Sure here's some cash, bugger off.

[Jen]

I guess a man also has a choice if he's really that concerned about being "duped" into becoming a father. He can always not commit the requisite act. Simple. Maybe that's the advice you should give your kid.

[Wally Keeler]

Your suggestion for abstinence reminds me of the policies of the religious right. Just say NO as the Republican Reaganites suggested -- very simple.

Becoming a father, like becoming a mother, is a choice not to be taken lightly or as a matter of course. Parenthood is an enormous responsibility -- both to the parents and their children. I know it because I lived up 100%plus as a responsible father. I have counselled my son ("your kid" as you contemptuously put it) to consider the consequences of his actions, first and foremost for himself. The woman he lives/loves with for more than a year now, reciprocates with the same love and respect.

Unlike you, She respects the measures that he takes for reproductive protection. She regards it as protection for herself also. And she regards it as respect for her as well. A man who respects himself is far more likely to respect a woman.

That means wear a condom every time, and to dispose of the used condom himself. Very simple. He doesn't have to deny himself the requisite act. He just has to be responsible about it. That's the advice I gave my son. Go ahead and tell me what is wrong with that advice.

It is HIS sperm, not HERS. Get it?

If you are implying that females by their very nature as females have never "duped" men, then you are just too stupid to blog about such matters.

There are such females. And there are plenty of males willing to spray their sperm around willy nilly without a shred of responsibility. If I had a daughter I would counsel her to be aware of that fact, to provide her with a long list of reasons why any male she encounters should wear a condom -- and she should take whatever other measures to protect herself. I would counsel to take care of herself first and foremost.

Your snarky attitude of feminist supremacy and condescension is unbecoming. Equality -- get it. It's a two way street.

[Wally Keeler]

Unlike you, I am not a proponent of that religious right mantra -- just say no. I have always been a proselytizer of sex for fun and frolic. My governing word is "responsibility", for oneself first, for others second.

I have noticed that you, like most other social activists, counsel others to take responsibility for those who take little or no responsibility for their own free choices. Well, my dime helps to support all those little irresponsible idiots who failed to take responsibility over their reproductivity because I believe that no child should be deprived just because their parents (females as well as males, get it?) were irresponsible idiots.
Nevertheless, I get to comment on the value given for my dime.

Your feminist myopia excludes a large part of the picture.

[Jennifer]

I think, Wally, that, presumptuous as you are, you seem to believe that the person to whom you are responding is Jennifer O'Meara, the woman to whom this blog belongs. Stunningly, there is more than one Jennifer out there, and I am not Jennifer O'Meara. So, kindly at least attempt to correctly direct your ridiculous, nonsensical diatribes.

[Wally Keeler]

I have the courtesy to post with my full name so as to distinguish myself from the other Wallys out there. Jennifer O'Meara has the courtesy to post with her full name to distinguish herself from the other Jennifers out there.

BTW, your pettiness aside, my son is MY son; he's not your "kid" as you condescendingly refer to males. I smell misandry in your post.

[Wally Keeler]

I'll bet Jennifer (not O'Meara) that you cannot extract a single sentence from my "diatribe" and indicate how it is "ridiculous and/or "nonsensical." Go ahead, give us some intelligent insight and dialogue instead of your argumentum ad hominem attitude.