On 12-12-18 5:42 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Marks <[log in to unmask]>
>> This false equivalency gets bandied around quite a lot in academic
>> circles (maybe elsewhere, but I lead a sheltered life). Let me assure
>> you that there is a significant difference between what goes on in a
>> standard pat leave and what goes on in a standard mat leave.
> Yes, I agree with drawing a line between standard leave and extended
> career-break child-rearing leave.  I didn't mean to suggest a "false
> equivalency" so thanks for the help clarifying: the first bit of leave
> is necessarily different for the mother, for the biological reasons
> Steve outlines, and this is encoded in English law, 26 weeks of
> Ordinary Maternity Leave vs 2 weeks of Ordinary Paternity Leave.
> Extended leave is treated the same in law here, starting with 26 weeks
> of Additional *aternity Leave and I feel that's probably correct.
> So I still suggest that the issues around child-related extended leave
> are not solely for women.
>> I'm not arguing that there aren't many dads who do a great job of child
>> rearing, but in your average, everyday, heteronormative context, this by
>> default falls to the woman. [...]
> Probably, and we should not support that default by suggesting such
> extended-leave issues are only for libtechwomen, should we?

Perhaps, but we equally need to recognize that such issues exist. The 
amount of leave isn't really the point, it's the level to which a 
person's professional life is disrupted and the extent to which their 
professional environment supports it. In academia, it does *not*.

(I apologize to the non-academics here, but this is the only world I know.)

Not to flip the table or anything, but the fact that we are still having 
this conversation is as strong an indicator as any I can think of that 
there is an issue.

>> Anyway, I hope you don't feel like people are piling on, MJ. I think
>> it's a token of respect that every member of the code4lib community
>> has for each other that folks *are* making the effort to understand
>> and be understood.
> I sort of both do and don't.  I do appreciate that people are making
> the effort, but I do worry that other minorities are collatoral damage
> of some vociferous support for this larger-minority single-issue
> group, that few seem to be supporting a strong anti-discrimination
> line and that it's not really clear what libtechwomen is yet.

I appreciate that there are lots of groups out there who could benefit 
from support, but it's completely spurious to say that *this* group has 
to be all things to all people. It's not meant to be a tribunal on 
equality, it's meant to be a forum where women can discuss issues that 
may not be understood in the larger community.

Again, I think the only criteria for the existence of such a group would 
be the existence of folks who feel it's necessary. To suggest otherwise 
is some form of gaslighting at best.



Stephen Marks
Digital Preservation Librarian
Scholars Portal
Ontario Council of University Libraries

[log in to unmask]

"Fearlessness is better than a faint heart for any man who puts his nose 
out of doors. The length of my life and the day of my death were fated 
long ago." --Skírnismál