Mostly Facebook ads are annoying. But, every once in awhile, they provide blog-fodder.
Like this Ad which appeared on my feed a few days ago, promoted by A Better Balance:
“Police Officer Lyndi Trischler is pregnant and facing economic hardship thanks to a new City of Florence, Kentucky policy denying modified duty to any City employees…unless they have an on-the-job injury. A Better Balance filed a charge on her behalf with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission–we call on the City of Florence to update its policy to be in full compliance with the law immediately!”
The ad linked to this article about Officer Trischler, which laments, dramatically:
These disagreements can have devastating consequences. Pregnant workers who have been forced onto unpaid leave rather than receive accommodations have…lost their health insurance and their income. Some, according to EEOC documents and court records, have been told by supervisors to choose — their babies or their jobs.
Oh, no! Not having to CHOOSE! You mean making a really hard decision between two things they really, really want?!?! Baby or career? Baby or career?
Hm, I understand why the pregnant ladies would want to sue.
However, folks, suing won’t produce “a better balance.” These mothers are asking for SPECIAL rules for women who want to have babies. Having special policies for different groups is basically the definition of “unequal,” but that’s what these women are demanding:
I think somebody needs to tell Officer Trischler that women choose between “their baby” and “This Other Thing” ALL THE TIME. Like, last summer, when I had to choose between my unborn son and a really fun-looking water-park roller coaster…
The theme park even posted a little picture of a round-bellied woman, with a circle and a line through it, as if to say, “NO, round-bellied lady. Don’t even think about it!”
But only a cuckoo bird would exclaim, “they DISCRIMINATED against me!” and then sue for compensation for every ride I didn’t get to enjoy.
Most people recognize that roller-coasters and fragile, fetal-life don’t mix. Pregnant women don’t expect to ride roller-coasters. So–why do we lose all rationality when it comes to the workforce? Why do they expect to handle law-enforcement all nine months?
Unborn babies and chasing bad guys don’t mix. But, of course, Officer Trischler understands that. She admitted it herself, with a pretty important quote: “I just physically couldn’t do the job anymore.”
Why isn’t that the end of the story?!
What kind of person expects to stay on the payroll when they aren’t doing their job? What person calls the situation “balanced” when women take an extended break–but still keep the title and benefits they are physically unable to earn?
A cuckoo bird?
Decades ago, women demanded an equal opportunity to be employed because (they argued) there was no measurable difference between male/female abilities. They set out to prove “anything they can do, I can do better,” so if/when somebody got pregnant, that woman sucked it up and suffered quietly rather than admit the truth…
Women in general–but especially pregnant-and-postpartum ones–really can’t handle the same rigorous jobs as most men.
Biology is really inconvenient for the “equality, equality, equality” crowd.
Anyway, for years, women either chose not to have babies, or they quietly left their jobs when they got pregnant, because asking for special privileges was the same as admitting the jig was up. Women don’t make “equal” employees.
Men and women are equally valuable to society–but they have very, very different strengths/weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the (irrational) feminist voices have influenced most of our society over time. And now, the assumptions of “equality” are so ingrained that most people don’t even care that pregnant women make lousy police officers.
Now, they think the city should pay them anyway.
Not only that, but employers should continue to pay women as if they’re still working, even when they’re home in the PJs, snuggling with their new babies…because apparently it takes awhile to recover from child birth. (Really? Mothers don’t just bounce back?) The early feminists would have denied it. They would have insisted, “That’s a stereotype and prejudice!”
But, now that Maternity Leave is up for debate on the federal level, feminists heartily argue for the special needs of mothers. (Quoting the study found here.)
“Policy makers developing regulations for parental leave entitlements should take into consideration the high prevalence of excessive daytime sleepiness experienced by new mothers, ensuring enough opportunity for daytime sleepiness to diminish to a manageable level prior to reengagement in the workforce.” (emphasis mine)
In other words, people who pay women should consider that they’re worn out after having babies. Most new mothers need special accommodations.
And I totally agree–new mothers DO require flexibility and understanding.
…but, for some reason, I get in trouble when I take it a step further saying: that’s why new mothers make difficult employees.
I believe bosses should be able to take female differences into consideration when deciding whether or not to hire women in the first place. (Particularly women in their child-bearing years.)
Is this so difficult to grasp?
If female officers need special treatment during the nine months they’re pregnant (and for several months following the birth), what Police Chief in his right mind would hire them?!
I suppose, the police chiefs who are bullied into it by an advocacy group calling it “balance.”
In summary, the City of Florence has a policy of “denying modified duty to any city employee…unless that person was injured on the job.”
That’s perfectly fair.
The system is already balanced.
No special loopholes for the already-disabled. No policy changes for angry mamas in denial that they’re different from male colleagues. (And certainly no lawsuits for them! Sheesh, feminists are expensive.)
I’m not sure the organization “A Better Balance” knows what that phrase means. Instead, this is just another case of “advocates” turning into bullies.