By Boseong Yun
The Washington Post recently reported on the grim realities of maternity leave. According to “On maternity leave? You may face lending bias, HUD says” by Emily Wax in the Washington Post, banks are reluctant to give loans to female workers on maternity leave.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development launched 15 maternity leave discrimination investigations and 173 allegations against lenders. These show that there are abundant cases of official maternity leave discriminations in the United States.
These maternity leave discriminations are all the more problematic, because securing a mortgage is vital to buying a house for the family. Without the mortgage, people face difficulties facing affording a house.
Another reason why it is problematic is because a significant number of women are devoted to the labor force, enlarging the sexual inequalities and economic consequences. For instance, the article reveals that, “…50 percent of women return to work within three months after giving birth, more than 70 percent of mothers with young children are in the workforce and four in ten mothers are the sole or primary breadwinner for their families.” These show that maternity leave discriminations have bigger economic consequences, increasing the economic dimension of sexual inequality.
Economy is a necessity for leaving, and pregnancy is a biological reality. That is to say, the current lack of social conditions for female workers are economically detrimental for them.
Choosing to getting married and having a daughter or son is incompatible with the structures of the society for female workers. Simply having a son or a daughter may risk a mother having access to housing. With the increasing number of female workers, this maternity leave discrimination means more economic dimensions of sexual inequality problems in an era where economic power is a quintessential necessity for living.
The Washington Post recently reported on the grim realities of maternity leave. According to “On maternity leave? You may face lending bias, HUD says” by Emily Wax in the Washington Post, banks are reluctant to give loans to female workers on maternity leave.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development launched 15 maternity leave discrimination investigations and 173 allegations against lenders. These show that there are abundant cases of official maternity leave discriminations in the United States.
These maternity leave discriminations are all the more problematic, because securing a mortgage is vital to buying a house for the family. Without the mortgage, people face difficulties facing affording a house.
Another reason why it is problematic is because a significant number of women are devoted to the labor force, enlarging the sexual inequalities and economic consequences. For instance, the article reveals that, “…50 percent of women return to work within three months after giving birth, more than 70 percent of mothers with young children are in the workforce and four in ten mothers are the sole or primary breadwinner for their families.” These show that maternity leave discriminations have bigger economic consequences, increasing the economic dimension of sexual inequality.
Economy is a necessity for leaving, and pregnancy is a biological reality. That is to say, the current lack of social conditions for female workers are economically detrimental for them.
Choosing to getting married and having a daughter or son is incompatible with the structures of the society for female workers. Simply having a son or a daughter may risk a mother having access to housing. With the increasing number of female workers, this maternity leave discrimination means more economic dimensions of sexual inequality problems in an era where economic power is a quintessential necessity for living.
RSS Feed
