Are women naturally less ambitious than men?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Most businesses cannot afford to have members of staff out of work, and receiving wages for long periods of time. Where do you expect her wages to come from

As far as I know the vast majority of materinity and paternity leave schemes around the world are paid for by the state, not the employer.

Might be wrong about that, but I don't think you are going to get a huge number of companies folding as women down keyboards in droves to have kids

b3t4

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I know the vast majority of materinity and paternity leave schemes around the world are paid for by the state, not the employer.

Quote from http://www.oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_leave.html?search=maternaity+leave "Payment during maternity leave is normally provided through Maternity Benefit, which is a Department of Social and Family Affairs payment. Some employment contracts allow for additional payment rights during the leave period, for example, that the employee will receive full pay, less the amount of Maternity Benefit payable."

A.

Zombrex

b3t4 wrote:

Quote from http://www.oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_leave.html?search=maternaity+leave "Payment during maternity leave is normally provided through Maternity Benefit, which is a Department of Social and Family Affairs payment. Some employment contracts allow for additional payment rights during the leave period, for example, that the employee will receive full pay, less the amount of Maternity Benefit payable."

A.

Exactly .. so all that is expected is that the employeer keep the job for the parent when they come back (ie they don't fire them for getting pregnent).

Is that really so much to ask?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I gave the logic in my post and the evidence was presented at the start of this thread.

Which logic was that then?

That men need to do well in their career because society expects that of them, yet women have the option to chuck the career in and decide to "do well" at being a parent?

Well aside from the fact that that statement is so general as to be largely nonsense, I still don't see how you get from that to saying that women are not willing to work hard at their jobs (ie "pull out the stops"). Surely if a woman has choosen a job she will work as hard at that job as a man might until the point in her life that she decides to have children, if she does in fact decide to have children.

Or are you saying that women starting off in careers might not be interested in working as hard in their early careers as men because they know 10 years down the line they might pack it all in anyway to raise a child?

Might be wrong about that, but I don't think you are going to get a huge number of companies folding as women down keyboards in droves to have kids

Sorry I never intended to supply that image, but if one of the core members of the companys employees leaves for pregnancy that does cause problems for the production of that company.

I'm not saying I'm against pregnancy leave. I haven't said that so far. I've only said that its understandable that preference is shown to people who will not be leaving their jobs for pregnancies....

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Which logic was that then?

The logic you’ve failed to grasp.

That men need to do well in their career because society expects that of them, yet women have the option to chuck the career in and decide to "do well" at being a parent?

Are you saying that there is no difference in the social pressures placed upon men and women in this regard?

Well aside from the fact that that statement is so general as to be largely nonsense,

Of course it’s generalised, we’re discussing groups not specific individuals.

I still don't see how you get from that to saying that women are not willing to work hard at their jobs (ie "pull out the stops"). Surely if a woman has choosen a job she will work as hard at that job as a man might until the point in her life that she decides to have children, if she does in fact decide to have children.

Men are brought up with the idea that unless they are a success in their career or similar, they are failures. Women are not brainwashed in the same manner. I don’t think it’s all that hard to understand the incentive in men.

Or are you saying that women starting off in careers might not be interested in working as hard in their early careers as men because they know 10 years down the line they might pack it all in anyway to raise a child?

Perhaps in some cases this is true. Some women will even admit to this.

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

This thread is about to degenerate into another gender war, I suspect. More importantly, the topic has little to do with women having babies and probably more to do with what they do after they have those babies.

Biological differences (women get pregnant, men have testosterone, etc) aside, I believe the difference in ‘ambition’ is almost entirely sociological.

Like it or not it is largely frowned upon for a man to be a house husband. From an early age we are encouraged to be competitive and aggressive. We aspire to be alpha males and, TBH, a lot of women will aspire to be with alpha males. Indeed, most of the self-esteem issues that men suffer tend to be related to our inability to achieve that goal, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to see that we will put in those extra hours, take those extra risks, jump on those extra opportunities that many women will not.

Women are not brought up in the same way. That’s not to say that they’re not ambitious, but they are given a socially acceptable alternative to success, so it’s not a ‘win or die’ scenario for them. If a man has a crap career he’s a failure, if a woman has a crap career she can always go and become a mother and/or housewife. Men don’t have that choice.

Sure, we have that in theory, but in practice we actually think of house husbands as pussies. Go on, tell the truth. Hands up all the girls who want to grow up to marry a guy they have to bankroll.

So it’s hardly surprising if women are not as willing to ‘pull the stops’ as men. I’m sure they’d be just as ambitious if they had no alternative.

Well it certainly will degenerate into a gender war if you say that women are not as ambitious because if they end up failing they can always go and have a baby! Good Lord, what century are you living in? DO you really ascribe this rationale to your female co-workers (in general)? If this is an example of the male attitude, then no wonder women's careers suffer. And by the way, it is not just a womans decision to have a bay - usually it is a couples. And the motivation ain't usually because the woman is crap at her job / less ambitious.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

Well it certainly will degenerate into a gender war if you say that women are not as ambitious because if they end up failing they can always go and have a baby! Good Lord, what century are you living in? DO you really ascribe this rationale to your female co-workers (in general)? If this is an example of the male attitude, then no wonder women's careers suffer. And by the way, it is not just a womans decision to have a bay - usually it is a couples. And the motivation ain't usually because the woman is crap at her job / less ambitious.

Once you stop ranting I suggest you read over what I said again.

I simply said that for men we have an additional social pressure. We do not have the option to become ‘house husbands’ and are in fact encouraged from an early age to be ambitious.

Women do not have the same social conditioning and are in fact given (perhaps encouraged) to go the other route and stay at home making babies.

It’s simply a question of incentive and conditioning.

Madge

The Corinthian wrote:

We do not have the option to become ‘house husbands’ and are in fact encouraged from an early age to be ambitious.
Women do not have the same social conditioning and are in fact given (perhaps encouraged) to go the other route and stay at home making babies.

It’s simply a question of incentive and conditioning.

IMO, Thats BS in this day and age. More and more young girls and women are going to 3rd level and climbing the corporate ladder. They are, if not more, just as ambitious as men. FYI, When young girls go to a guidance councellor, they're not told to become a homemaker, :rolleyes:
This 'social conditioning' you are yapping about is from the dark ages and doesn't apply now.

Nevyn

It is not in the dark ages it is in every home were a girl helps her mother with house hold chores and a boy sits on his ass infront of a pc or tv.
Children copy what the see thier parents do and base thier preception of the world on that unless the parents activly make the point that either gender can do what they want ( with in reason) when they grow up.

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

Once you stop ranting I suggest you read over what I said again.

I simply said that for men we have an additional social pressure. We do not have the option to become ‘house husbands’ and are in fact encouraged from an early age to be ambitious.

Women do not have the same social conditioning and are in fact given (perhaps encouraged) to go the other route and stay at home making babies.

It’s simply a question of incentive and conditioning.

Not a rant - Do you really think that nowadays girls are encouraged to "stay at home making babies"? Really now?
Men do have the option to stay at home and become principal caregiver to their kids - and depending on whose salary is higher, more and more men are taking this option. Most enlightened people do not consider this devalues his masculinity in any way.

seamus

hepcat wrote:

Not a rant - Do you really think that nowadays girls are encouraged to "stay at home making babies"? Really now?
Men do have the option to stay at home and become principal caregiver to their kids - and depending on whose salary is higher, more and more men are taking this option. Most enlightened people do not consider this devalues his masculinity in any way.

Read the first line of what you quoted.

He's not saying he believes the conditioning is right, but it definitely exists. Regardless of the fact that "More and more" men are doing it, there is still a social stigma in many circles about the man who stays at home looking after the kids. It is slowing being eroded, but it is there.

I would say that yes, in general women are still receiving messages that playing the Mammy to their children by staying at home is what they should be doing. Ask a working mother if they feel guilty about leaving their child in a creche in the mornings, and if they would stay at home if they could afford to, and the bulk of them would say yes.
Ask a man the same question, and he'd probably feel guilty about leaving the child in the creche, but even if he could afford it, he'd be less "drawn" to staying at home with the kids.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

Not a rant - Do you really think that nowadays girls are encouraged to "stay at home making babies"? Really now?

I said, at best, that women are “perhaps encouraged” to stay at home, but even that detracts from my principle point that had nothing to do with women; which is that men are encouraged not to stay at home and that the ideal of the Alpha Male (masculine breadwinner type) is drummed into us at a very early age.

So yes, you’re ranting.

Men do have the option to stay at home and become principal caregiver to their kids - and depending on whose salary is higher, more and more men are taking this option. Most enlightened people do not consider this devalues his masculinity in any way.

Most people are not so ‘enlightened’ however. The prevailing view - by either gender - of a ‘house husband’ is not terribly flattering. Most men would feel, to some degree or other, emasculated by becoming one and most women would, in all honesty, not want to marry one.

Now you may be different, but you’re not Society.

hepcat

Why is what I say considered a rant?!!

Anyway nowadays girls are simply not even "perhaps" encouraged to "stay at home and make babies" as TC said. Girls are actively encouraged to pursue third level education and a career - every bit as much as boys are. Yes Seamus - WOMEN may indeed be made to feel guilty and by not being a full time mammy, and women may naturally feel guilty at leaving their children in a creche full time. This however does not mean that the same women are naturally less ambitious than their male counterparts - just perhaps that having kids and climbing to the top of the career ladder are unfortunately mutually exclusive and it is usually women who lose out in this scenario. Perhaps it is because women are able / socially obliged to sacrifice their natural ambition.

seamus

hepcat wrote:

Anyway nowadays girls are simply not even "perhaps" encouraged to "stay at home and make babies" as TC said. Girls are actively encouraged to pursue third level education and a career - every bit as much as boys are.

Of course they are. But they're also encouraged from another angle to set up families.

This however does not mean that the same women are naturally less ambitious than their male counterparts - just perhaps that having kids and climbing to the top of the career ladder are unfortunately mutually exclusive and it is usually women who lose out in this scenario. Perhaps it is because women are able / socially obliged to sacrifice their natural ambition.

I disagree completely that having children and a successful career are mutually exclusive, rather it's just a very very difficult thing to do for a woman.
I'm not sure if you read my post earlier on, but I did say that I don't think women are naturally less ambitious, rather their focus tends to shift towards the more immediate (and dare I say more important) issue of children, when they do come along. It's not an forced "sacrifice" of ambition, but a refocus of it - there are more ways of being ambitious than trying to get the top job.
When the children come along, men's focus will also shift, but in a way that will feed their career ambitions. I'm speaking in general terms here, I'm well aware that some women go to become CEOs after having kids, and some men stay at home and give up the day job.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

Why is what I say considered a rant?!!

Because you’re not bothering to address what I said, but rather are responding to a perceived offence without any semblance of a coherent argument - in fact you contradict yourself by rejecting the possibility that women are encouraged, but then suggesting that they are socially obliged.

Spot the difference? That’s because there is none.

Anyway nowadays girls are simply not even "perhaps" encouraged to "stay at home and make babies" as TC said. Girls are actively encouraged to pursue third level education and a career - every bit as much as boys are.

I said “perhaps encouraged” and even went so far as to repeat that in my second response to you because I do think it is lessening and, IMO, of a lesser importance than the conditioning men receive. However I would also suggest that you’re actually quite naive if you think that such encouragement no longer takes place in any schools or families in this country, let alone elsewhere in Europe.

Not that you’ve bothered to address what I was principally discussing which was male conditioning, but then again, that might not have fitted in with your rant.

Yes Seamus - WOMEN may indeed be made to feel guilty and by not being a full time mammy, and women may naturally feel guilty at leaving their children in a creche full time. This however does not mean that the same women are naturally less ambitious than their male counterparts - just perhaps that having kids and climbing to the top of the career ladder are unfortunately mutually exclusive and it is usually women who lose out in this scenario. Perhaps it is because women are able / socially obliged to sacrifice their natural ambition.

What do you think we’ve been saying? How does suggesting that women “perhaps encouraged” to stay at home differs from your own assertion that women are “socially obliged to” stay at home? Is it all right only if you say it?

Which, again is a secondary point to that of what men are “socially obliged to” do.

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

Because you’re not bothering to address what I said, but rather are responding to a perceived offence without any semblance of a coherent argument - in fact you contradict yourself by rejecting the possibility that women are encouraged, but then suggesting that they are socially obliged.

Spot the difference? That’s because there is none.

I said “perhaps encouraged” and even went so far as to repeat that in my second response to you because I do think it is lessening and, IMO, of a lesser importance than the conditioning men receive. However I would also suggest that you’re actually quite naive if you think that such encouragement no longer takes place in any schools or families in this country, let alone elsewhere in Europe.

Not that you’ve bothered to address what I was principally discussing which was male conditioning, but then again, that might not have fitted in with your rant.

What do you think we’ve been saying? How does suggesting that women “perhaps encouraged” to stay at home differs from your own assertion that women are “socially obliged to” stay at home? Is it all right only if you say it?

Which, again is a secondary point to that of what men are “socially obliged to” do.

First of all, I don't have to fully address the principal point of any of your posts, believe it or not. I'm more interested in the general topic and will disagree with certain points you have made if I wish. If you decide to principally discuss male conditioning, well and good, go for it buddy. No need to lecture anyone for not addressing your principal tenet.

Perhaps you have not fully read my "rant" as I said that while girls are generally not encouraged to stay home and make babies anymore, women may certainly be made feel guilty, and naturally feel guilty, for not being a full time mum. Spot the difference? No? Ok, what I mean is that girls no longer grow up conditioned to think staying at home and making babies is the most valid option for them. Women who have children however do indeed feel the pressure of deciding between minding children full time and their career.

The Sweeper

I always find it weird to read that "women and babies" argument. It's as though having babies is an extra-curricular activity that some people do by choice - like going skiing six months of the year.

Yes men cannot physically bear children. But women can't have babies without men either. It's not like women can all just decide to stop having babies. It'll become an issue quickly enough if they do!

I think women are just as ambitious as men. However they realise that ambition in different ways. Ambition is all to do with want. We can all want the same sorts of things, or the same levels of achievement. Achieving ambition is another thing - that's all about opportunity, drive and ability.

Women shot themselves in the foot when they started demanding to be treated exactly like men. We're not like men. We're different to men. What we've done is alienated men and abused them and called them oppressing b@stards and generally dug a big hole for ourselves regarding men, money, rights, distribution of labour and everything else.

oh - and the vitriolic rubbish about women on AH was partly my fault. I had one of those "solve the problem of the homeless by eating them" moments.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

First of all, I don't have to fully address the principal point of any of your posts, believe it or not. I'm more interested in the general topic and will disagree with certain points you have made if I wish. If you decide to principally discuss male conditioning, well and good, go for it buddy. No need to lecture anyone for not addressing your principal tenet.

Why don’t you address my punctuation while you’re at it? Maybe discussing something you wish I said but never did, would be more to your liking?

Perhaps you have not fully read my "rant" as I said that while girls are generally not encouraged to stay home and make babies anymore, women may certainly be made feel guilty, and naturally feel guilty, for not being a full time mum. Spot the difference? No? Ok, what I mean is that girls no longer grow up conditioned to think staying at home and making babies is the most valid option for them. Women who have children however do indeed feel the pressure of deciding between minding children full time and their career.

Women are not “encouraged” but they are “made feel guilty”?

With respects, what type of semantic horse**** is that?

hepcat

The Corinthian wrote:

Why don’t you address my punctuation while you’re at it? Maybe discussing something you wish I said but never did, would be more to your liking?

What? Cross are we?

Women are not “encouraged” but they are “made feel guilty”?

With respects, what type of semantic horse**** is that?

Read back over my post, the difference was between the disputed conditioning of girls (i.e. you are arguing they are conditioned to grow up thinking staying at home to make babies is a valid option), and the real pressures working mothers face. Nothing to do with that various and subtle nuamces of the English language.

Women shot themselves in the foot when they started demanding to be treated exactly like men. We're not like men. We're different to men. What we've done is alienated men and abused them and called them oppressing b@stards and generally dug a big hole for ourselves regarding men, money, rights, distribution of labour and everything else.

Totally agree, which could explain why I and a few posters mention the Pregnancy aspect versus having a successful career. The problem with crying out for equality is that when it arrives it has to stop, which hasn't happened so far.

Traditionally successful careers require sacrifices to be made by the men involved. Whether that be family life, or even general health. Its a choice to be made. Its also a choice that women have to make as top whether they want a successful career or a family life. This IS equality. Regardless of the issue of creating children, women will have to face the fact that they will have to dedicate themselves to achieving higher positions at the expense of other areas.

BTW, I've never been interested myself in those higher successes. I'm quite content with what I have. But I know that if I did want to be more successful career, I would have to sacrifice alot of what I consider essential to my current lifestyle. Welcome to equality.

The Corinthian

hepcat wrote:

you are arguing they are conditioned to grow up thinking staying at home to make babies is a valid option

Actually my primary point was about the conditioning of men. If you stop looking for gender wars you may notice that.

Buttermilk

I was reading this tread earlier and thought it was interesting. I had no idea men are still paid more then women in this country. Are men paid more then women in all sort of jobs eg supermarkets, Dunnes, part time work or are they only paid more in career wise?

The Corinthian

Buttermilk wrote:

I was reading this tread earlier and thought it was interesting. I had no idea men are still paid more then women in this country. Are men paid more then women in all sort of jobs eg supermarkets, Dunnes, part time work or are they only paid more in career wise?

Christ, then at least read the first post in the thread.

The point of this thread was that men are paid more only because the do longer hours and if pay per hour is measured then both men and women are on equal pay. From this it was postulated that if women are unwilling to do the extra hours, then they are less ambitious than men. Hence the discussion.

So men may earn more, but they are not paid more.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Its also a choice that women have to make as top whether they want a successful career or a family life.

Women want men to pick up more of the slack with the "family life" end of things to free them from such a stark career progression/family choice - allowing them to go after their career more aggressively if they want to without making as many sacrifices.

Sounds deceptively simple and easy doesn't it?:v:

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Women want men to pick up more of the slack with the "family life" end of things to free them from such a stark career progression/family choice - allowing them to go after their career more aggressively if they want to without making as many sacrifices.

Which is basically equality, each parent pulling the same weight. The man makes some sacrafices in his work for his children so the woman doesn't have to make all the sacrafices in her work.

Personally, I think this is the best option.

I don't like the idea of both parents have full-on careers and the children being raised by nanny's and the school system. But a the same time it is ridiculous in this day and age that a woman should give up everything to raise a child while the man gives up nothing.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Women are not “encouraged” but they are “made feel guilty”?

With respects, what type of semantic horse**** is that?

It makes perfect sense if you read it properly.

Women are not really encouraged by society any more to give up the career to have children. In other words it is not expect of them to all down keyboards at 30 and get married and have kids.

But that doesn't mean that once a woman has children she doesn't feel, or is made to feel, guilty about leaving the role of full time mom to continue a career. This guilt can come from society or simply from missing their children (ie biological needs).

So there is a big difference between society encouraging women to settle down and have children to society making working mothers feel guilty about not staying at home once they have children.

In my view women are certainly encouraged to have a career, but there is still pressure (rightly or wrongly) to give up that career once they eventually have children. A pressure that isn't, rather unfairly in my opinion, on men to the same degree.

Nevyn

Yes, but society also makes stay at home mothers feel bad about about being at home. 'What do you do ?'Oh so you don't work. you are just a stay at home mother'
As if you don't currently have a career or a salary of your own you have no worth or prospects.
Or that you are/were stupid to get pregant or to want kids and to ruin you life.

Feminism is ment to be about choice and enabling women to have more choices, ones that work out for the good of society and falling birth rates are not a good thing or the trend of only the lesser educated people having all the children.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Which is basically equality, each parent pulling the same weight. The man makes some sacrafices in his work for his children so the woman doesn't have to make all the sacrafices in her work.

Aye. The basis for the equality of having the man work long hours, so that the woman can stay at home looking after the kids. This was equality for those women that did want to focus their lives on homemaking and looking after children. Now most women want to leave the home, and gain the success that men have in the workplace. The problem is though that many women seem to consider doing the equivilent work that men are expected to do, is being sexist.

Do you really think women want real equality, or rather just an easy ride to the top?

Wicknight wrote:

I don't like the idea of both parents have full-on careers and the children being raised by nanny's and the school system. But a the same time it is ridiculous in this day and age that a woman should give up everything to raise a child while the man gives up nothing.

The man gives up nothing, because this is what has been expected of them from day one. The woman must sacrifice in certain areas, because they haven't had to do so before.

What you're expecting from men is that they make even more sacrifices than is expected, basically to allow women to have both options. If a man was to ask the same of women in this day and age he'd be called a "sexist pig" or some other such nonesence.

Thaedydal wrote:

Yes, but society also makes stay at home mothers feel about about being at home. 'What do you do ?'Oh so you don't work. you are just a stay at home mother'

I wonder if you're confusing society with womens opinions of other women. I've never felt this way about women who choose not to work. In fact the only times I've seen this kind of response, were from women who worked themselves, and were scornful of other women who didn't work like they did.

Thaedydal wrote:

]As if you don't currently have a career or a salary of your won you have no worth or prospects

Welcome to how people react to a man in the same situation. Its quite realistic really. IF you don't have a career, or a salary, then you don't really have many options. Thats reality. Now if your partner whether male or female, provides the income required to live, then, thats a different story altogether. But if you're single, in that situation, its quite true from a financial perspective.

Thaedydal wrote:

]Or that you are/were stupid to get pregant or to want kids and to ruin you life.

If a woman chooses to have kids, when she has an income coming in to her, from a husband, boyfriend/girlfriend etc. then thats perfectly ok by my book. If a woman gets pregnant by accident, then she was foolish to do so, since there are many ways of preventing such. Not going to get much sympathy from me (But even then, the Law protects them by forcing the father to pay support, who in turn has very little rights for even shared custody).

But if a woman choses to get pregnant, when she doesn't have the income to support such an investment, then yes, she was an idiot. And raising children IS expensive, and should be thought out with care.

Thaedydal wrote:

]Feminism is ment to be about choice and enabling women to have more choices, ones that work out for the good of society and falling birth rates are not a good thing or the trend of only the lesser educated people having all the children.

Feminism is like heaven. Everyone has a different idea of what its really going to be like. If we ever get there. Personally, I believe feminism has gained equality for women in the West. Nowadays feminism is about turning the tables, and giving women more rights than men. And they're doing a damn fine job of achieving that. Now men are the sex with unequal rights in society.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you read it properly.

I can read it properly and it does not. It’s simply semantics at best.

Women are not really encouraged by society any more to give up the career to have children. In other words it is not expect of them to all down keyboards at 30 and get married and have kids.

But that doesn't mean that once a woman has children she doesn't feel, or is made to feel, guilty about leaving the role of full time mom to continue a career. This guilt can come from society or simply from missing their children (ie biological needs).

So there is a big difference between society encouraging women to settle down and have children to society making working mothers feel guilty about not staying at home once they have children.

Encouragement, as long as you don’t decide to idiotically take the term too literally, is not always positive in nature. People are encouraged, or probably more correctly conditioned, with incentives, threats and even guilt.

Not wanting to give you a 101 on sociology, but:

• The threat of terrorism or crime encourages us to seek greater security.
• The guilt of seeing others suffer encourages us to donate to charity.
• The incentive of tax breaks on childcare encourages us to make babies.

If it were a question of semantics and you’d prefer if the term encouraged was not used, but, say, ‘Social Conditioning’ replaced it, then by all means if it makes you happy. But it still would simply be a question of semantics and nothing else.

So with respects, both you and hepcat are talking utter rubbish on this.

Of course, that does not mean that society isn’t schizophrenic and is willing to put pressure to do the opposite too. This is because Society is in transition with regard to the gender roles and women are now beginning to be conditioned in the same manner as men.

My point is that the reverse is not true on these influences and while both options are socially acceptable to women they are not for men, leaving men in the unenviable position that they must be successful in their careers or be deemed as failures as men.

In my view women are certainly encouraged to have a career, but there is still pressure (rightly or wrongly) to give up that career once they eventually have children. A pressure that isn't, rather unfairly in my opinion, on men to the same degree.

This is the semantic bull that’s actually beginning to irritate me at this stage with some people claiming that women are not “encouraged” to stay at home, but then turning around and suggesting that they are put under “pressure”.