A READER WRITES:

I just had to write in as I really was appalled at the misinformation contained in the post from the ‘childless female manager.’

I am a 30-year-old male manager working at a large multi-national corporation and now have the joys of working with a large number of ‘working mothers.’ They are unequivocally a drain on productivity, time and resources.

Let me give you an example. One of the women who works for me had a child recently. This means she leaves work everyday at 4 p.m. and is unavailable for later meetings. She only works four days a week. In addition, she works from home at least one to two per week on top of this, especially if her child is sick. I’ve been on work conference calls with senior managers and had to shut them down because her child is crying in the background. I am lucky if I get a good 4-6 hours work from her on any given day, when she is in. Forget about ever working late – she is out the door at 4 p.m. on the dot each day. She disrupts the team, disrupts the office and more importantly, I cannot rely on her to get the job done. Meanwhile, she shows up in my team as a ‘full time resource’ – and my bosses wonder why I can’t the job done when I have such a big team.

However, the fact that she is failing in work is surely less important than the fact that she is failing at home. She is constantly tired, stressed and harried. How can anyone choose to live like this? In my experience of the workforce so far, childless women are fine to work with. Once the children are born it’s another story,

Businesses do things for profit. If it made sense to have these women in senior positions, business would have done it already. The fact is they only do it to appease so called ‘diversity’ regulations.

I fully support a discriminatory policy against working mothers – there is absolutely no way an organisation can have working mothers in critical positions given their dual responsibilities.

Laura writes:

The mass influx of women into the workforce has hurt business in many cases and it has hurt families. It has hurt women and it has hurt men. It has hurt the young and it has hurt the old. It has hurt individuals and it has hurt communities. Who is the winner here?

Jesse writes:

 Laura asks: “Who is the winner here?”

 Your question here goes to the question of why feminism exists. Feminism is so universally harmful in so many ways it begs the question “Why does feminism exist? Why does anybody support it?” 

The answer is, nobody is the winner. Feminism harms the family first and foremost. The harm to the family and to community values in general then harms the economy. Finally the political system is harmed. Feminism harms all aspects of society, all spheres of life. Worse yet, the harm of feminism is a degenerative process, the harm gets worse and worse with each passing generation so that tomorrow is always worse than today for as long as feminism maintains its dominance within the culture. 

According to my own theories the issue is not “Who is the winner here?” because there are no winners, feminism doesn’t exist to benefit “winners.” The issue is what function does feminism serve within a dysfunctional society, and why are people afraid to let it go? 

I think feminism is intended as damage control, to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. People have lost their ability to relate to each other and form relationships effectively. The skills needed to make patriarchy work have been lost. People resort to feminism because feminism makes the most of the diminished interpersonal skills that they still possess. 

In order for society to be rebuilt the ethics and moral rules of patriarchy need to be recreated and relearned.

Mabel LeBeau writes:

With regard to the young male manager’s consternation with working mothers in a large multi-national organization, one hears over and over again that the most valuable resource of a company are its employees. One might think in a simple form that a job description of a manager might include language about stewardship of the organization’s assets. The question quickly comes to mind as to whether there are an inordinate number of working mother employees compared to the working father employees, if on analysis there are wage discriminatory practices that favor hiring inferior ‘working mothers’ over ‘working fathers’, why? If not, then as a manager why not work within the company hiring practices with the employees to address all issues that impact productivity, and improve the outlook for the other co-workers required to pick up the slack in inflexible working conditions? If, as manager, discriminatory work practices exist, document the inequity and fire those failing to do their job. Employee loyalty is not a commodity easily purchased in the company store.

Laura writes:

Mothers cannot be fired because of suits like the one at Goldman Sachs. The problem is not in hiring here, but in the corporate welfare mothers receive. While on the face of it, parental leave and breaks for working mothers seem virtuous and family-friendly, they are no more family-friendly than government welfare payments. In fact, they are harmful to families not only because they hurt the productivity upon which families depend, but they encourage unrealistic expectations, single motherhood and the loss of the male provider. Parental leave, above and beyond normal sick leave, should only be given with the understanding that it may affect an employee’s status.  Placing family welfare in the hands of business is a disaster. Business could never possibly offer enough in the way of breaks or leaves and the illusion that it can only fosters dependency and grievances.

James P. writes:

With respect to the male manager’s comments about working mom employees, he should also note that if a “discriminatory” policy were applied, i.e. she were denied raises and promotions because she’s not getting the work done, she would be the first to scream “discrimination!” She would sue the company, and probably win.

His experience has been that childless women are fine to work with. That hasn’t been mine. Younger women, in particular, are likely to attempt antics that young men will never attempt, i.e. crying and wheedling to escape unpleasant assignments, crying if they can’t finish an assignment, using their looks to unload their work onto male coworkers (who are not rewarded with sex, just the endless unfulfilled prospect of it), manipulating male managers (especially older ones) to obtain special privileges, and generally not pulling their weight. Woe betide the young man who is on a team with an attractive young woman and an older male manager; the young man will do most of the work, the young woman will get the rewards, and if the young man dares to complain he will be punished or fired.

My company does have working mothers who are conscientious and productive. We also have a number of men, working mothers, and childless women who are totally worthless. It remains to be seen who will be thrown out of the sled first as the economy continues to deteriorate. Sadly, very often the first person out is the person least likely to sue for wrongful termination – the white male – regardless of his actual value to the company.

Jim B. writes:

I wonder that no one has brought up the effect working mothers have on the “working father”?  All of those distractions, leaving early, etc. that affect the working mother affect her husband as well (assuming that he’s around).  Since my wife is at home full time with our child, I can give my full attention to the job at hand when I’m at work.  Two working parents mean two distracted and frazzled workers, not just one.

Please follow and like us: