The Prime Minister of Spain has more women than men in his cabinet.  The Defense Minister is a woman, the first woman to head Spain’s armed forces.  What’s more, she’s seven months pregnant.  (Click here to see her and her belly reviewing the troops and to read more about this development.)  It’s speculated that she’s the first pregnant woman in history to head a country’s armed forces.  In Spain, because of the Prime Minister’s clear mandate for affirmative action in his government, women have come a long way–quickly.  Spanish feminists are elated.  Conservative males (particularly retired military men) are troubled, in part but not entirely, because the Defense Minister is entitled to a four month maternity leave when a male counterpart would get only 15 days.  In addition to being upset about a woman being in charge, the retired military men and other conservative males believe that the person heading the country’s armed forces can’t afford the luxury of taking off four months–for any reason.

In the U.S., pregnancy discrimination is, of course, against the law.  It’s a form of sex discrimination.  Interestingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently reported that pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the agency in 2007 jumped a whopping 14% as compared with charges filed in 2006.  So, maybe taking a look at pregnant females in the workplace is timely in light of the news from Spain and from the EEOC.

Consternation over women serving in the American military is nothing new.  Although women now serve in combat, hold all sorts of military positions, and stay in the military when they’re pregnant, there’s still disagreement from time to time about what their role in the armed foces should be.  But’s let look at this issue from the standpoint of what we might call the more ordinary workplace.

Although sex discrimination charges and lawsuits are still plentiful and although complaints about a glass ceiling for women in the C-Suite haven’t gone away, women play increasingly important roles in all companies and organizations.  Male CEOs still far outnumber female CEOs, but the gap is slowly narrowing.  It would be difficult to look at any job classification and not see gains in the number of female employees over the past 5-10 years.  And in 2009, we could have a female President.  “You go, girl,” has become something more than a somewhat humorous phrase of encouragement for women.

But what about the female employee who is pregnant?  Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, if she qualifies for leave, she can be off for 12 weeks in connection with the birth of a child.  A male employee who is the father of a newborn child can also take off 12 weeks, but that rarely happens.  Most workplaces contain subtle (sometimes not so subtle) pressure that inhibits a man from being off a long time to bond with his new baby.  (Click here for a thorough article about, among other things, how men don’t take FMLA leave and the history of gender discrimination in the U.S.) Moreover, since FMLA leave is unpaid, the possibility of both parents being off for 12 weeks is unthinkable.

And now to put a fine point on the issue of a female taking off a long time, say 12 weeks, to be with her newborn child.  If the female is the CEO, should she be able to do that?  Can the company afford for her to do that?  The same questions can be asked about other jobs viewed as critically important to an employer?  What if the female is in charge of a huge project designed to move the company up a few notches in terms of its competitiveness in the marketplace?  What if the project requires on-premises supervision?  Lots of travel?  Eighteen hour days?  What if a promotion to a big job is being considered and the two candidates are a well-qualified man and a well-qualified pregnant woman?  Should the fact that the well-qualified pregnant woman can’t hit the ground running result in the promotion going to the man?

As far as the law goes, the answer to all of these questions is that pregnancy can’t be taken into account.  If you take it into account, you’re guilty of pregnancy or gender discrimination.  No one would deny, however, that it gets taken into account anyway in some situations like the ones mentioned above.  No one would openly admit to its having occurred either.  It just happens.  Some other reason is given.  The powers that be hold their breath.  In due course, the no-longer-pregnant-female is given anther big job, and if luck prevails, everyone lives happily ever after.

Let’s forget about the law for a minute.  Should an employer be able to use pregnancy as a disqualifier?  Is it reasonable to require an employer to put things on hold until the pregnant employee is back in the saddle?  What would happen if a male CEO gave notice that he would be gone for 12 weeks to help his wife take care of a newborn child?  If a male employee were up for a big promotion but was placed in bed for 12 weeks on doctor’s orders because of a temporary medical condition (which means he doesn’t have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act), would the employer be justified in giving someone else the promotion?

Some of you might say these are difficult, legitimate questions.  Some might say they’re nonsensical queries to give employers a way to keep women from having a significant career and having children.  When these kinds of questions are raised, women will often point out that male executives are cut a lot of slack when they have to deal with medical problems and illnesses.  But mention pregnancy, and that’s something entirely different.

I could keep writing for a while about all this.  The argument about how pregnancy should be treated in the workplace has been going on a long time and I suspect will continue–not out in the open but in our brains or behind closed doors.  Two things are certain, however.  First, only women have babies.  Second, the law making pregnancy discrimination illegal isn’t going to be changed.  It would seem, therefore, that we should use these questions in a positive way instead of a negative one.  Women having babies and women serving in executive capacities aren’t mutually exclusive propositions.  I think we all know that.  Our daughters certainly know it.  And the Defense Minister of Spain knows it.  We have big problems to solve.  Spending too much time on questions about pregnancy won’t help us solve them.