Actually SuperMse I'd disagree about most women being able to balance their jobs and children quite nicely, especially when the children are very young. Latchkey kids and the like are absolutly massive problems, as are kids effectively being abandoned to be raised by strangers in daycare and such. Honestly it seems that a stable and happy childhood along traditional lines is becoming a thing of the past, and working women (traditionally the child rearers) are a big part of it... honestly I'm not sure if this is currently the majority to be honest, but I think it's rapidly getting that way.
It becomes a very touchy subject, very quickly.
As far as them demoting her, well I am against sexism as long as the woman can do the job without the standards being lowered. A woman raising a child has to put the kid before everything else, especially for the fist couple of years. This can mean doing things like having to leave work early, use up all your sick time to take care of the baby, and request special leaves. It happens to everyone, and your stupid not to realize it.
If her job was very involving (and if it was international, I am guessing it was) then it's pretty much a "duh" thing that she is not going to be able to perform those duties the way she was before.
Treating women who give birth like women who have given birth is not discrimination, it's common sense. A lot of women believe they should be able to get the special treatment of being a mother, while still holding onto a career the same as if they didn't have those issues. I personally happen to disagree, and for very similar reasons for why I disagree with police forces and such lowering physical standards for women, or even in general specifically so more of them can make the cut.
If a woman has the capabilities to do something, not letting her do it because she's a woman is discrimination. If she can't do the job as defined (even if it's because of lifting requirements, or needing to care for a baby) then it's not discrimination.
Women's sufferage works both ways.
I know many disagree with me, but honestly this doesn't sound like a discrimination case. Actually it sounds like the company is pretty much willing to keep her on the payroll in a decent job, while making allowances for whatever she needs to do. Yes she is making a bit less money (I have no idea how much she made a month beforehand, but I'm guessing from the way it sounds that it was a lot, and that she still probably has a great job), but in comparison for the presumed benefits that sounds fair. A lot of companies are infamous for not working with women under such circumstances.
Is it "fair" that women have to put their careers on hold for what could be considered a part of their biological/psychological condition (having children). Well to be honest I'd say "yes" to a great extent because any way you look at it men and women are differant. Trying to ignore this is foolish. I believe equality means women have the right to vote, and are allowed to do any job they qualify for and can perform irregardless of their gender, but when they lose that abillity for whatever reason they should be treated like anyone else.
I was born with my skull closing up and they had to install (and then remove) a plate from my head, which left me with a huge dent and presumable brain damage. My mental problems have varied in severity through my life (and also depending on medication). However when they got pretty bad again laws presenting discrimination against the disabled didn't exactly prevent me from being fired due to aberrant behavior and mood swings, or force people to hire me. Thus I wound up retiring on disabillity.
I don't feel I was "discriminated" against even if I'm a bit bitter about parts of it. I see women as occupying a similar position in cases like this. The employer can't ignore the baby any more than they could ignore my mood swings, talking to myself, and other issues.
>>>----Therumancer--->
