Nationwide employee Angela Ames was denied a place to breastfeed at work after returning from maternity leave and upon complaining was forced to resign with the message, "just go home and be with your babies." After taking the case to court on several occasions, finally leading to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that Ames forced resignation was not sex discrimination due to the fact that men can also lactate. The ruling of this case truly sheds a light on the discriminatory workplace policies that do not efficiently accommodate pregnancies or motherhood, which in itself, exposes the sex discrimination and bias against women on a multi-institutional level.
The biggest question raised by this case is: how can the US Supreme Court rule that the case is NOT an act of sex discrimination? A good argument that supports Angela Ames claim for sex discrimination is as follows:
- Schemas-also known as webs of related ideas, characteristics, etc. would suggest that the idea of breastfeeding would (primarily) be connected to ideas of pregnancy, women and motherhood, all of which are ideas connected to the female sex due to the nature of women being pregnant and becoming mothers.
- Although men can indeed lactate, men cannot become pregnant, and are typically thought of as "father" types rather than "mothers" which makes it more difficult to categorize the idea of "breastfeeding" with "males.
Feel free to leave your comments, thoughts, opinions, or questions on this case in the comment section and check out the latest article on this case if interested in hearing more:
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/court-rules-firing-mother-for-breastfeeding-isnt-110548718077.html
No comments:
Post a Comment