A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece about how long it takes for UIF maternity benefits to be paid. Afterwards, I was contacted by many women with similar stories. There were also numerous comments from people who struggle in general with UIF payments.

 One or two people objected to my comment that it is seriously backwards that companies are not forced to make a financial contribution to women on maternity leave. They made the point that this would put an impossible burden on small companies.  

I understand that. However, I did not imply that companies should pay the full salary, but merely that they should pay the portion that UIF payments do not cover. That is usually about 1/3rd of a salary. Surely all companies could afford that – especially since they usually pay less for maternity cover and do not include benefits.

The comment that really got to me was from User7462 who said: “From personal experience, I would never employ another female. All four of them ‘fell pregnant’ at more or less the same time which was 25% of the staff complement.” 

I’m not quite sure why the ‘fell pregnant’ was put between inverted commas? I trust that User7462 is not suggesting that the four women planned to all get pregnant at the same time. If that is what was meant, let me assure him (I’m assuming it is a man) that falling pregnant is tricky and definitely not as easy as “let’s coordinate our diaries.”

That more as an aside. 

What really bothered me is the fact that this person was saying that he would never employ a female (sic) again because they get pregnant.

Let me start with the blatantly obvious point. If we want to have people, we need pregnancies. User7462 would not have been here if a woman (his mother) did not get pregnant at some point.  There would not have been a Mandela, Mozart, Einstein, Gandhi – or for that matter any of us, if a woman did not get pregnant.

Secondly, pregnancy and childbirth take an enormous toll on a woman’s body. Yet, for the world to keep on existing, we must do it. Yes, women usually love their babies and get joy from engaging with them, but looking after children and especially small babies is no walk in the park. It is ultimately a massive contribution to society.  Thus, women deserve legal protection during the time when they need to recover physically and whilst caring for infants during their most vulnerable phase shortly after birth.

To make an obvious point again: Men can’t get pregnant, so unless you want to argue that no one should get pregnant ever, you can’t penalise women for needing time out of the workplace.

Another reader by the name of Noremac commented that parents make a conscious decision to have a baby in full knowledge of the financial implication and thus the employer should not have any part to play in this.  Noremac, the problem is that men are never penalised for having babies… women are. They are the ones who lose income and career advancement, or if you share User7462’s outlook, don’t get appointed. Again: why should women be penalised for being biologically the only ones who can fall pregnant?

A certain Packmann agreed with Noremac and said that to have a baby when you can’t afford it is the most irresponsible act imaginable.  In an ideal world, I would agree that one should be able to meet the financial needs of a child when you choose to have one. However, often women don’t have a choice. Birth control frequently fails, or women fall pregnant through forced sexual relations – often in marriages or relationships.

Financial situations can also change.

For example, in South Africa up to 40% of women end up as single parents – not out of choice, but because the fathers of their children disappear or abdicate their responsibility. I’m sure that in every instance the father assured the woman at the time of conception that they would be present and contribute financially. Far too often that goes out the door the moment the baby arrives and the mother is therefore forced to work to keep her child alive.

Unless we are going to penalise the men who get women pregnant, we have no right whatsoever to penalise women in any way for falling or potentially falling pregnant.  

I have employed both men and women in many capacities. From my experience, there is no one more hardworking than a single mother. They don’t waste time, because they don’t have time to waste. They also need the income to feed their children and therefore value the job and work hard. 

Apart from financial pressure, many women want to work and advance in their professional lives as much as men. However, they would also like to have a family and provide their partners with a child. Surely, they should be able to do it all without being disadvantaged financially and career-wise.

We must change our attitude towards pregnancies.

Instead of suggesting that women irresponsibly fall pregnant (the old “they can’t keep their legs closed” argument), all women should be celebrated and supported for the amazing sacrifice they make to society during pregnancy and childbirth. That includes time off, as well as timeous financial support from the state and their employers.

With apologies to the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof: “It is women, who hold up the sky!”