Op.Ed Women In the Workforce

Town Hall - Conservative Side

           
NY Times - Liberal Side

            In these economic times, what should happen about working women and maternity leave? Should females get paid even though they’re not working? Or, should they be put on unpaid leave or let go since they can’t perform? The female population clearly has a lot to offer, however they are the same population that gives birth. Op. Ed. journalists conservative John Stossel and liberal Dina Bakst offer opposing views about this issue.

            John Stossel, writer for Town Hall, commented that all of the lawsuits due to women in the workforce are unnecessary and ironically, harmful to women workers. Stossel very smartly interviewed a mother who doesn’t believe in pregnancy lawsuits yet claims to be a feminist (she is vice president of the Independent Women’s Forum). By interviewing this woman, the journalist was able to write from an empathetic angle, portraying that even working mothers don’t agree with The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Stossel used a guileful approach. He found an interviewee who believes that women should not be compensated when it is time to have a baby.  This interviewee, to the conservative’s benefit, is a working mother. The Town Hall writer hit the jackpot by finding a working female that agrees with this, helping to widen his audience to more than just wealthy white men sitting in their office chairs. This is because, by laying out the issue as Stossel did, it seems reasonable that we should only be payed for the time we work. If women want to be equal, then shouldn’t they be equal in all aspects? Stossel went even further to say that once Congress starts protecting certain groups (i.e. pregnant women), companies become decreasingly likely to hire these groups. So, when women decide to have children, they should be payed less since they are working less. Throughout the article, the journalist never brought up why a woman should receive no pay for the time off to have a baby, but at the same time, is expected to want a family. Since men do not bear children, they don’t have to quit their jobs in order to start a family. Women are not afforded this luxury. This was a big gap in the Op-Ed’s argument.

            The liberal Dina Bakst held the more popular belief that women are not only being fired unfairly, but are forced to work in unacceptable conditions when pregnant. “In 2008 a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled that a pregnant women’s firing was fair because her employers were not obligated to accommodate her needs.” If a pregnant employee cannot lift something heavy or has to leave work early to make a doctor’s appointment that does not make them disabled, so, employers do not legally have to provide accommodations for women. Democratic legislation has introduced a bill to provide better conditions for pregnant women. Bakst maintained that these types of laws are necessary to public health. Since many women are reluctant to ask for these accommodations due to fear of loosing their job, it is important to protect these employees as well as their unborn children. Another insight that the journalist suggested is that, by helping these pregnant women, there will be healthier, more loyal, and harder working employees. Bakst’s argument seemed to be rooted in facts. Women are not getting the accommodations they need, and maybe that is why they are suing so often.

            Both of these Op-Ed articles, while addressing the issue of women in the workforce, use completely different angles to paint their picture. Stossel was being seemingly objective, claiming that there is a simple solution to these rampant lawsuits. We should be paid for the time that we work. On the other side of the spectrum, Bakst’s solution was to give women more benefits. This way, with a happier employee, there will be a happier company. With women becoming increasingly more powerful, the liberal aspect of this argument is clearly the more popular one. John Stossel received hate mail for preaching his conservative angle. The question to be drawn from these articles is how should the government handle compensation for women in the workforce? Stossel was assuming that men and women have equal rights, and therefore should receive equal consequences when time must be taken off. What he was insinuating is that men and women are the same. I think it is blatantly obvious that men and women are different, although equal, different. Since women must perform the act of having a baby, it is popular belief that women should be given the right to a paid maternity leave. Stossel completely looked over this point. Bakst is assuming that women are constantly battling the choice of whether or not they should have a baby or a job. In today’s society, many mothers are on their own or are even the source of income in their family. Bakst didn’t have to work too hard to prove her point. In order to strengthen her argument however, the journalist should have taken note of all the lawsuits and used it as a way to tell her readers that women are fighting back.

            I found it compelling to read two articles with completely contradictory viewpoints. I feel as though I had a more well rounded outlook on the issue. Reading different opinions allows for a more objective and thorough understanding of the problems going on in our society.