"In this provocative and very personal article, Vogue editor ALEXANDRA SHULMAN argues that mothers' rights are making women unemployable..."
I'd go further. The rights are disempowering women. These rights are only available to women who manage to secure a position either in the public sector or in a large corporation. Although they may be available in smaller organisations and, of course, are availabe in smaller organisations (both in law and practice); they cannot be available to the same extent as the former classes of organisation.
As for a woman as employer rather than employee getting these rights - yeah, right.
In a nutshell that's my point. If you're female, if you're go getting and want to make it outwith the state sector or large corporation; you have very little chance of doing so. The playing field is not only on a massive slope, these regulations have put a huge ha-ha in the middle of it; not only to mock but to keep the cattle from rising beyond their station. The only way to fulfil your ambition is to bend and ameliorate it such that you have to be a corporate fink.
The chances of you becoming an employer within this legal environment are negligible and diminishing.
We are looking at the case of Marshall again. A case where someone who worked for the state had more rights than someone who didn't: except this time employees working for corporations are included.