Canadian citizens, or so I believed, hold in general fairly progressive social values which enable even the weakest members of our society to contribute. Yet, after reading the comments to a globe and mail article "Should pregnancy be considered a disability?", I seriously doubt the capacity for reasonable thought on the part of many Canadians.
In this article, posted Fri January 6th, Dave McGinn, discusses a recent bid in the states to give pregnancy the status of disability, so that women in the workplace can receive basic allowances for their altered condition. Such reasonable measures include frequent bathroom breaks and drinking water while working, which would allow most pregnant women to work late into the third trimester.
The most vitrolic responses to this fairly innoculous article included suggestions that breeders should not be hired and caricatures of women as overly emotional and lazy, who slack off by going on multiple maternity leaves. Many commentors insisted that as it was the woman's choice to have children, the financial and personal burden should rest entirely on her shoulders instead of the government's or the private company's.
This seems to represent a basic merging of biological destiny and social responsibility. Such a line of reasoning reads: since it is only women who can bear children, they must be the ones entirely responsible for their care. Everyone else should be completely absolved of all responsibility. Besides for being completely selfish, this knee jerk reaction to slightest hint of shared social responsibility ignores women and children as a valuable resource for the continued wealth of Canada.
By making slight adjustments to the workplace, improving maternity leave, and supporting child care, we are investing in both a current resource, women, and a future resource, children. Without support for both women and children, we are in fact weakening the productive capacity of Canada.
Instead of dividing and conquering, in order to get a bigger piece of the pie, why don't we increase the size of the pie? Or as one commentor asked, have you told your mother what you think?
In this article, posted Fri January 6th, Dave McGinn, discusses a recent bid in the states to give pregnancy the status of disability, so that women in the workplace can receive basic allowances for their altered condition. Such reasonable measures include frequent bathroom breaks and drinking water while working, which would allow most pregnant women to work late into the third trimester.
The most vitrolic responses to this fairly innoculous article included suggestions that breeders should not be hired and caricatures of women as overly emotional and lazy, who slack off by going on multiple maternity leaves. Many commentors insisted that as it was the woman's choice to have children, the financial and personal burden should rest entirely on her shoulders instead of the government's or the private company's.
This seems to represent a basic merging of biological destiny and social responsibility. Such a line of reasoning reads: since it is only women who can bear children, they must be the ones entirely responsible for their care. Everyone else should be completely absolved of all responsibility. Besides for being completely selfish, this knee jerk reaction to slightest hint of shared social responsibility ignores women and children as a valuable resource for the continued wealth of Canada.
By making slight adjustments to the workplace, improving maternity leave, and supporting child care, we are investing in both a current resource, women, and a future resource, children. Without support for both women and children, we are in fact weakening the productive capacity of Canada.
Instead of dividing and conquering, in order to get a bigger piece of the pie, why don't we increase the size of the pie? Or as one commentor asked, have you told your mother what you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment