So what do employers now want? That women should stop having kids if they are employed with them??

Hello Nishi,

Your comments even in the story link that you submitted are as brief.

I don’t think employers want women to stop having kids. The other side of the issue is that it can become quite a burden for small and medium employers to offer nine months of paid leave, find a substitute for the nine month ( to be increased by parliament to twelve months ).

Instead if we move towards better legislation to enable young mothers to bring their children to the vicinity of their work environment, creation of creshes in work places, attendants it could be a compromise. Three months of paid leave, six to nine months of lighter work with facilities to bring in the babies. It should also become a common and accepted sight to have young mothers to bring in their new borns.

Hello Nishi,

Actually you have made my suggestion a little more complete. I wasn’t quite thinking about Flex Hours as much as I was about making the work environment easy for a young mother. Flex Hours is what you are suggesting and that makes the alternate that I have suggested more complete.

In the original article there was a remark about legislation such as 9 months of leave with pay becoming counterproductive - ”women who lost their jobs after becoming pregnant suggest that they are paying a heavy price for their new rights.” The alternate was suggested to avoid such undesired effects of women’s right legislation or any perceived excess of privileges to women.

This is real problem and you cannot blame neither employers who cannot avoid financial losses nor women employees who have children to look after. The problem is in our social structure that expects too much from women. It is the stark reality that you cannot balance your home and office at the same time. Supermoms are simply myths.