While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, it happens all the time and is very hard to prove.  Many women do not know their rights and thus, never pursue legal recourse when they have been illegally terminated or demoted.

The situation is only getting worse in these times of "Family Values".

Grrrrrrrrr.......I could spit venom when I think about this topic.

The interesting thing to analyse here is actually the causes of this behaviour. Are so many mothers earning so little because women actually get demoted (or denied promotion) when they are or become mothers? I don't doubt that that makes up a large fraction of the disadvantaged population here, but I doubt it's all of it. Another factor, I think, is that the women who become mothers already aren't in very good situations financially. Poverty generally carries with it a lack of education which, in the modern world, means a lack of sex education and a lack of access to abortion.

In other words, the people who most need family planning are the least likely to have it, and not by their own choice, either.

Yet one more demonstration of how you can't sacrifice any aspect of the progressive agenda on the altar of pragmatism. The whole thing ties together.

It's that fatherhood doesn't.

My wife runs into the same thing--didn't get the directorship of a medical clinic because we have a son (who is largely self-sufficient nowadays, as he's a teenager and is therefore omniscient).  Yet I, as a "family man" (in other words, not some suspect old bachelor in a ratty cardigan with loads of cats) have a favourable eye cast upon me.  I suppose being able to commit to marriage and being a father makes me a "mature" and "responsible" person--but why doesn't it work that way for women?

I'm willing to bet that a study would show that married men have an economic advantage over single men.

Parenthood benefits men but disadvantages women?  This is not merely a matter for legislation but also for a change in social attitudes.

There are three types of people: those who see, those who see when shown, those who do not see.

At work, it's assumed by management that I will take on major work assignments that tend to require travel or extended series of meetings, because I don't have kids (and staff with kids can't be expected to mess with their daily daycare balancing act).  Of course, any nasty end of the day emergency also gets directed to me, because I don't have kids (so there's no $50 penalty for late pick-up at daycare, the cat can wait for dinner and he has no homework). Result- complex, PITA assignments to me, assignments that are more predictably scheduled go to working parents. If I complain more about my work load as a result, I might get a small raise more often (if anybody was giving raises, which they're not).

My health insurance premiums are inflated to help cover gaps in the overall funding pool for family plans, which are priced at about 225% of my rate (covering 2 parents plus any number of kids). None of us are enjoying the changes which are restructuring our health care plan, because the overall cost increases are consistently outstripping both inflation and wage increases.

I've managed to purchase my own home (which I don't really have time to keep up due to unpaid overtime and travel) and I happily pay local property taxes on it, 60% of which go to educate other people's kids. Me- I like school and think kids need more of it on the public's dime.

In the end, maybe there's one big difference between being progressive and conservative in reacting to this issue of pay inequity.  This progressive accepts that I may give up some parity in order to help support other people's families and to benefit the public good. However, what I really would love to see is better SYSTEMIC solutions to eliminate regressive burdens on all workers.  You can call me satan, or you can call me commie, or you can call me Al...