PostingOf pregheads and jealousy

Reading a nasty piece by Minette Marrin in The Times about pregnant newsreader Natasha Kaplinsky, I was tempted to write that women are so often their own worst enemies. But then it occurred to me that no bloke nowadays would dare say what Marrin does, which is that Kaplinsky is selfish and contemptible for getting pregnant before she started a £1m a year job as the 'Face of Five News'. A man might have thought it, but only a woman could (almost) get away with saying that.

"If I were running Five I would be beside myself with rage," fulminates Marrin, a woman who looks like a) her childbearing years are memories b) even in her full reproductive glory did not see much uterine action, though I could be wrong about that; despite laying into Kaplinsky, Marrin does not volunteer details of her own parity.

Of course, as you might expect, Marrin expands her grouse to include all women who expect to combine work and having children. "The proper word for all this is exploitation," she rages, admitting that back in her more fertile years she was grilled by her own employers about her plans for children. Maybe that's why she's so nasty to Kaplinsky, envy of the (slightly) greater career opportunities women have nowadays compared to her time. She glosses over the fact that Kaplinsky won't receive a penny in maternity pay from Five - being a freelancer.

She also, predictibly enough, has spiteful things to say about the very state of pregnancy:

"Meanwhile, instead of the ferociously sexy on-the-ball babe that Five hired, Kaplinsky will be becoming larger and mumsier, she may have a nauseous or difficult pregnancy requiring lots of time off, and at some point her brain will be affected by the amnesia of pregnancy. This is a phenomenon that is now widely admitted, even by feminists (although it is equally often denied when inconvenient); there is even a nasty new fashionable word for a woman  in this state - preghead."

Small point here - aren't all pregnancies nauseous and difficult? Just by their nature?

Underlying Marrin's attack, no doubt motivated by jealousy that Kaplinsky combines a career with good looks, happy relationship and, now, to Marrin's horror, a baby on the way, lurks this assumption that childbearing can and should be scheduled for a lull in our diaries. Life, nature, our bodies, relationships; none of them work like that. If we waited for the 'perfect' time to get pregnant, we'd be waiting forever. Until 'fashionably late' was too late.

There's always going to be something that might warrant delay in trying for a baby - new job, a book to write, promotion, holiday, family crisis, lack of money, fear we won't be 'good enough'. My feeling - and this is just my personal opinion - is that you have to block everything else out and go for it. If I hadn't I'd never have dared have a child. And who knows what Kaplinksy's real circumstances are? She might have suffered a series of miscarriages over the past few years. Or she might have feared (wrongly, as it turns out) that she was infertile. Lay off her, I say.

Posted 07 April 2008 14:05

Fashionably Late - the book News Older mother

Comments

iota said:

I agree. Lay off her. I HATE it when people pontificate on the personal details of other people's lives. As you say, we just don't know the history of Kaplinksky's decision. At least Marrin says "I have not tried to count the weeks and figure out the moment of Kaplinsky’s conception; somehow it seems rather rude". But the maths is pretty simple, so it's hard not to do it, even without trying.



Mummy brain is, actually, no worse for your output at work than bereavement, stress (work-related or otherwise), divorce, being in love, etc etc. It's real life out there, for heaven's sake.

Posted 07 April 2008 18:21

Helen said:

Dear Iota, one wonders if she's advocating that none of us reproduce... Beautifully put, by the way, ("It's real life out there").

Posted 07 April 2008 19:17

bushra said:

agreed, minette is showing some serious envy here, plus not all pregnancies are problematic. some can have no mummy brain (preghead sounds so horrible) at all. and like you say, you just have to go for it when you start thinking about having children, you can't take anything for granted these days.



i'm phasing my way back into the office full time, and i'm fortunate enough to be able to afford my son's childcare at a nearby day nursery. the thing for me is as a muslim i can earn money and the family in law have no entitlement to my hard earned cash, but as a pakistani i am expected to ensure my husband and children are looked after. so if i choose to go back to work i have to fulfill wifely duties first. and to the horror of the extended family i'm doing it! which is obviously making the menfolk look foolish for subduing their daughters/wives should they ever consider education or employment. fortunately i don't need to make any defiant gestures. going to work every day seems to be telling them what's what!

Posted 07 April 2008 19:57

potty mummy said:

I think Minette Marin needs to take a look at some of the real issues worth writing about, rather than pontificating on ones that simply make her look foolish, resentful, and out of touch with reality. I can come up with a few off the top of my head (failing education, human trafficking, child poverty, abuse, forced marriage, teenage self-image, self harm, to name but a few) - and she wouldn't even have to look outside the UK to find far too much evidence of all of these.



One woman's decision on when and whether to have children hardly seems important when compared with those. So let's not bother to read about it.

Posted 07 April 2008 21:25

Joyfulgirl said:

I think she is showing real hate towards women - biologically women have the anatomy for pregnancy and childbirth - it's just the

way we are - the way more than half the world's population is - and - obviously, you are not going to carry a child for 40 weeks or more without some alternations to your body and life - but we don't choose how we will "react" to pregnancy - it just is what it is -in the same way that people talk a certain way, look a certain way, have certain intellectual abilities.

Thankfully yes we now have control - to a large extent - over when we choose to become pregnant - but the basic biology of pregnancy is out of our hands.

And really how absurd to base the whole argument on the fact that a TV job in entertainment and "looking good" (whatever that means) is more important on a grand scale

of life than the woman's personal choice to have a baby. Are we really supposed to think that is important to the world?



These articles make me so angry - it is so primitive to 100% "blame" the woman for the pregnancy as if there is no man in the picture who also might want the child and

have some input to the decision and outcome. It reminds me of the horrible past (and unfortunately still the horrible present for many women) when they were shamed and cut off from their families because they became pregnant - while in many cases the father was known and carried on with his life as normal. How shocking this prejudice still remains and gets printed.

Posted 08 April 2008 09:12

DJ Kirkby said:

This was a brilliantly written post as usual but I can't stop laughing over your phrase 'uterine action'. Lol!

Posted 08 April 2008 13:05

Helen said:

Oh Bushra, I can really sympathise with your in-law difficulties. I hear you loud and clear on this one. Like you, I'm glad to have a (small) measure of independence via the cash I earn. Well done you for ignoring your out-laws and going out to work! Here's to feisty daughters-in-law all over the world!



Potty Mummy, how true - but not much glamour or pretty newscasters in any of those subjects like trafficking/self-harm - suppose that might be why they don't get so much coverage. :( Plus what's to envy in some poor abuse victim?



Hi Joyfulgirl, yes, good point - what about her partner/husband!!! Takes two to tango, after all.



DJ, have been reading book that suggests women take pride in their uterus the way men do in, err, you know, their private bits. Is pregnancy hormones - have turned me into tigress willing to fight to protect my young. Am much more militant than normal.

Posted 08 April 2008 15:07

zornhau said:

However...



Does all this disadvantage working women because potential employers will - for purely pragmatic rather than ethical or cultural reasons - factor in the possibility that their new hire might vanish for several months?



I mean, suppose YOUR business succeeded or failed depending on your new Product Manager, and that not only was your own mortgage at stake (needed in order to house your young family), but also the jobs of twelve other people, of whom half were single parents.



You have two strong candidates. One is a married woman of 30 with no children, the other a bloke of the same age.



Bearing in mind what's at stake, how do you make that decision?

Posted 08 April 2008 22:14

Helen said:

But men aren't infallible, either, Zornhau. They get sick, get a better offer elsewhere, get keen on a move to Australia, get bored....



What's the worse case? That you pick the woman, she gets pregnant and you have to pay statutory (£100 per week) maternity pay for six months, while hiring someone else to cover her job temporarily - maximum 12 months. Not such a disaster, is it?



And, not to diss men, but working mothers cover lots of ground quickly while they are working, because they want to get the job done and get home to their kids. We represent good value to employers.

Posted 09 April 2008 07:34

Omega Mum said:

I've just been reading 'It's a carve up' by Jonathan Coe in which one of the characters repeats to another the comments she's just made in her tabloid common. "You don't expect me to write things I actually believe in and share them with a million chav readers," she says (well, she doesn't, but it's on those lines). Just a thought. Hope things are going well.

Posted 09 April 2008 09:56

Helen said:

Reminds me of when I was v. young and working for a right-wing newspaper that pushed the Tory line at every opportunity. Was shock of my life to discover most of the journalists claimed to vote Labour.

Posted 09 April 2008 11:58

Juliet said:

Oh dear. Let me first say that I don't like Ms Marrin’s views. And then let me say that I DO believe that society should organise itself in a MUCH more family-friendly way. However . . . sigh . . . here goes (and now you will all hate me), as an erstwhile employer, running a small business in a converted stable at the bottom of the garden with my husband and two employees, we took on a third employee. Someone, in fact, who came asking for work at a time when we needed another member of staff (because the business was booming) and she was well qualified for the job. She really wanted it badly. We offered her the job. She started a month later and announced she was pregnant. We took a lot of legal advice. We didn't have a leg to stand on. She took sick leave for morning sickness, time off for regular check-ups, came in late and left early because she was feeling so tired (and came back next morning with a new haircut - surprise!), and then she took maternity leave. It is not an exaggeration to say that she wrecked our business. In fact, the business is no more. The house with the office at the bottom of the garden is no more. The two are not unconnected. She cost us WAY more money than she made for us. And, in retrospect, I fear, she almost certainly knew she was pregnant when she accepted the job. We were her maternity ticket. I've no idea where she is now, but I know where we are now, and it is not where imagined we’d be. This is why employers - particularly small ones - dread every new employment right. I'm sorry to have to say it but this does touch a very raw nerve. As a self-employed person I got about £45 a week maternity 'pay' for six weeks and I was back working within a fortnight of giving birth x 3. If our employee had taken a job at a big company, then everyone would probably have got away with it. But she took a job with a tiny family business and it simply couldn't take the strain. There, now, I've got that off my chest and will stand by for the flak!

Posted 12 April 2008 00:12

zornhau said:

Ah - Juliet makes renders most of my reply redundant.



I'm all for a family friendly society, but then society and not the employer should pick up the tab.



Of course men are unreliable for the reasons that MaL lists, but then so are women - I've met more than on ex-pat who got bored of work responsibilities and bogged off around the world. Just like the footloose men, they accepted the consequences of their choices.

Only women who go on maternity leave, however, expect their old role to be there and no consequences.



The thing is that most professional roles are not pluggable. You have the cost of recruitment, then the lead time while you bring the new hire up to speed. Finally, the job itself probably melds a little around them, creating an extra overhead for any replacement.

For larger companies, in the long term, it probably does make economic sense to support and thus retain an employee. But for smaller companies...



Juliet's example is extreme but illustrates the problem. It also shows what might be going through the mind of a potential employer when interviewing a woman in the 25-35 range.



So all these lovely maternity rights are very easy for governments to give away because they don't cost them anything. But they're very unfriendly to small business, and potentially disasterous to women.

Posted 12 April 2008 17:27

Helen said:

Oh my goodness, Juliet, women like that do a disservice to all of us. How awful to be ripped off like that. I'd never seek to defend someone who behaves in such a reprehensible way as the woman you describe. She spoils it for everyone else.



Well, Zornhau, after reading Juliet's comment I've had to re-think some of my beliefs. Maybe the countries where the government pays women to stay at home with their young children have got it right. But don't forget - not all women are milking maternity benefits like this woman Juliet had the bad luck to employ. There are some good people out there too!

Posted 14 April 2008 17:56

zornhau said:

Hell yes.



The answer, of course, is to extend the same benefits to dads.

Posted 14 April 2008 22:39

Juliet said:

Helen - the point is that I WASN'T 'ripped off'! Whether she knew about the pregnancy before she accepted the job or not (and that is something I'll never know) is immaterial.My legal position was exactly the same. I was an employer. I'd offered her the job and therefore I was bound to let her start and then give her every right to time off for pregnancy-related things that she was entitled to from the moment she notified me of her pregnancy. Believe me, I checked my rights, and I had none! We just had to run with it and take the consequences. We're still taking them.



I have friends who run nurseries and hair salons - ie businesses with a workforce mainly of young women - and pregnancy amongst their staff is a constant source of worry. Ever wondered why childcare costs are so high? It's because nurseries often have more than 20% of their staff on maternity leave and, as Zornhau points out, the administrative and financial effects of recruitment for maternity cover are enormous, so the costs have to be passed on to . . . yep, women seeking childcare! Ironic or what? I know small business owners are always whining on and on, and everyone yawns, but I still can't help feeling there's something wrong with a 'system' which means I had to return to work two or three weeks after having my own babies in order to sustain a business which was then forced to give an employee full maternity leave on maximum pay. Bit of a no-win situation all round. Anyway, better stop whining and get on with my work now!

Posted 15 April 2008 09:44

Joyfulgirl said:

Yes it is terrible that this can happen and especially to a small company which can't

take the hit of this and also it gives the many genuine hard working pregnant women a bad name.

But I think the solution is better legal protection for small companies so that the employee has to be working for X amount of time before claiming full maternity rights and has to return to work after the maternity leave for X amount of time. Also better financial support from the government is needed so that companies (and especially small ones) don't end up shouldering the financial burden and so that self-employed woman can also claim better maternity rights.



For most women who work 40 or 45 years over the course of their working life I don't think it is unreasonable that they be allowed a year or less off for each pregnancy – probably only 2 pregnancies on average per woman – surely all working mothers and fathers pay enough tax over their working lifetime to support this.

Posted 15 April 2008 11:19

Juliet said:

Joyfulgirl - you're absolutely right in every respect - it's far better government support that is needed. At the moment, small businesses and the self-employed DO end up shouldering most of the burden. Statutory maternity 'pay' when I had my three (between 1993 and 2001) was something less than £50 per week. I could claim that for a few weeks on condition that I could guarantee I wasn't actually working when I claimed. I simply couldn't afford to do that, so I worked instead. Clearly, neither replacing a professional-level salary with £50 pw nor carrying on working until the week before (and resuming two weeks after) the birth is a remotely ideal state of affairs for mothers or babies. The alternative is for the self-employed to make their OWN financial provision by basically saving up so they can afford to be pregnant. This is not a burden placed on employed women - even if they've only been employed for a week they get better government (and employer)-sponsored benefits than this.



I promise get off my hobby horse and shut up about this now!

Posted 15 April 2008 21:59

Expatmum said:

I wish women would lay off each other! Every day I read something by one woman criticising another woman for going out to work, or not going out to work, once she becomes a mother; breast-feeding or not; using the bloody naughty chair or not; we all need to accept that we're doing the best we can and there's no need to justify our own lifestyles by slagging off the rest of our gender.

Posted 18 April 2008 20:24

Helen said:

Juliette, Joyfulgirl, I'm hit by the self-employed whammy too. Some friends urged me to get a job BEFORE becoming pregnant - so I could claim benefits, but it didn't seem right, plus I enjoy working for myself. Now poor old Va-vay is bringing in all the bacon.



Expatmum, exactly - people only criticise to make themselves feel better! Not that I am in any way immune to this myself...

Posted 19 April 2008 13:45


Post a comment

Enter your comment here.

You can use some html tags such as <b> and <i>.

Word verification

Name

Email (will not be made public)

Website (optional)

Remember me