If not why not ?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

So an employer should pay more to a narried man with kids than a single one?

Why? Whether men are married or not, they still would be expected to pick up the bill in the provider role. Even a single man would be expected to woo a woman with gifts and dinners or provide for his parents and potentially unmarried sisters.

The point I'm principally making is that if men are expected to have certain responsibilities then they should get certain rights. Likewise if women reject certain responsibilities (that they should provide for themselves, as you suggested) then they must in turn lose some.

Everyone thinks it was Salome who asked for the head of John the Baptist. It wasnt - it was her mother.

Irrelevant cliche.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why? Whether men are married or not, they still would be expected to pick up the bill in the provider role. Even a single man would be expected to woo a woman with gifts and dinners or provide for his parents and potentially unmarried sisters..

There is no law to back that up.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point I'm principally making is that if men are expected to have certain responsibilities then they should get certain rights. Likewise if women reject certain responsibilities (that they should provide for themselves, as you suggested) then they must in turn lose some..

So a woman should get paid less for the same job?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant cliche.

Completelt relevant and cliche is the voice of the people so dont knock it.

JC 2K3

WindSock wrote: »

To put much of what has been said in the last few pages in context, using a 'friend' as an example...

She believes in staying at home for the first few years of a childs life. She doesn't believe in having just one child, She thinks a child should have siblings to learn from. She also believes in starting a family in her early to mid 30's, any later and she thinks the generation gap is too wide.

She is now 26. She has no degree in anything, instead she went travelling and lived abroad. She now has little money as a consequence and can't get a decent job without a degree. She will have to go back to study, and also wants to, that will take her another 4 years. By then she'll be 30/31. Who will hire her at that age? She will be even more penniless by then, so how is she going to even consider having children without having anything to provide for them?
The Father could, yes, but to have a decent house in a decent enough area, a dual income seems to be the only way to live in this country.

I don't see how this has any relevance. Your friend has made bad life choices, so what?

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether she was male or female, her career would still be stillborn, not because of children or gender, but because she did not work on building it up since she was 18. This means that if she no belatedly starts her career she will be in effect getting her 'first' job an odd eight years after many of her peers - both male and female.

Not if she has been doing jobs that are relevent to the degree for the last 8 years. In order make any advancements in the job, she needs a degree, in order to get a degree it will take another 4 years. Understood most people do this when they leave school, but not everyone is sure what they want to to until much later.

TBH, I do think that you can't blame her situation on gender as a result. However, what often happens to women in her situation is that they look at the reality of starting a late career and opt to go down the housewife/mother route instead. Men in the same situation don't really have the same 'out' and so end up having to bite the bullet on the late start.

Men don't have the same 'out' because their options are far wider than just focusing on raising a family.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't see how this has any relevance. Your friend has made bad life choices, so what?

It has plenty of relevance, when some people leave school, the last thing on their mind is that they may have to hurry the fcuk up and get a career, because they will have to have a family by the time they are 35, because they are Female, forgetting that they are not equal, but supposed to be, to Males.


There may have been bad life choices, but there is more leeway for Men to make them, as there is more time for correction. If a Woman focuses on her career for 20 years, then she will find it more and more difficult to settle down and have a family.

JC 2K3

Since when do women HAVE to have children?

WindSock

Since that they may realise they would want them and it may be too late.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is interesting. As fathers gain more rights and custody would you also be more hesitant about hiring a man? As gay couples eventually get the right to adopt will you apply the same concern to men?

Of course, I'll apply the same concern to whatever may impact my bottom line frankly. In the case of the gay couple as an example I would like to know which of the two was the primary care giver to the child or children in question. That would impact how I would view them in a full time position. Part time would be another matter.

In the same way to take the earlier example of the insurance companies, who would increase car insurance for women overnight if they had the same payouts as for men. Simple bottom line logic really.

If I'm paying for something I need a return on that. If I was running a bigger company that had the resources to include childcare facilities etc then while it may impact my bottom line in one area, it could also increase it in others. In any case I would be in a position to budget accordingly. In a smaller company situation that's just not feasible, whichever way you cut it.

Wibbs

WindSock wrote: »

Men don't have the same 'out' because their options are far wider than just focusing on raising a family.

In some ways yes, in other ways no. If a man was left to raise his family alone and did so and then tried to get back into the job market at we'll say 40, he will have a much harder time getting a job than the woman in the same position.

Rozabeez

Assuming you mean a stereotypical feminist, then not at all! I like when men hold doors open or walk with me 'cause it's late.

Crumble Froo

i have to say, for all i believe in men and women holding a pretty equal role in socitey...i do like it when my man holds the door open for me, or buys me flowers. at the same time, i do often stand back to let him through teh door first, do several chores around the house to make him happy and be as polite/caring to him as he does be to me... but ... at the end of the dayl, when nobody else is around, he does tend to slip into 'male control 'i know what's happening around the hosue' mode...

i respect my man to the utmost, i have met a few women on a few nights out who speak of their men as if they were little mroe than a puppy who needed a coupla weeks training, but i really do have the utmost respect for them.

my b/f has a kid and has raised him every other weekend (the same way his kids' mother has raised him eveyr other weekend and he has spent weekdays at his grans') with his kid and is mad about him, and would... and i don't doubt his ability to follow through wiht this... and would probably seriously hurt/maim/kill anyone who really ****ed iwhyt his son.#

i think some things are as inherent in our typical roles as far as genes go, as they are with where personality goes... but i do believe that all people deserve respect and general acecptance of their views in society and thta nobody should be disciminated for their jobs or religion, as long as that ultimate view is not to eradicate the country theyr're in..

apoligies. i can phrase that a loit btter when sober.

The Corinthian

WindSock wrote: »

Not if she has been doing jobs that are relevent to the degree for the last 8 years. In order make any advancements in the job, she needs a degree, in order to get a degree it will take another 4 years. Understood most people do this when they leave school, but not everyone is sure what they want to to until much later.

Yes, but that is her problem, just as it would be a man's were he in the same situation.

Men don't have the same 'out' because their options are far wider than just focusing on raising a family.

That's simply not true. By law women have exactly the same options as men - except they also have the addition one of homemaking which men are frowned upon - if not ostracized - if they attempt to adopt.

There may have been bad life choices, but there is more leeway for Men to make them, as there is more time for correction. If a Woman focuses on her career for 20 years, then she will find it more and more difficult to settle down and have a family.

There isn't though. If we look at the steriotype of men being providers, then starting late effects this as they will not be in the same financial position as they would be if they had started earlier. Ultimately if you piss away (or otherwise employ) your twenties, there is a price you will have to pay a price.

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's simply not true. By law women have exactly the same options as men - except they also have the addition one of homemaking which men are frowned upon - if not ostracized - if they attempt to adopt.

That's bollix tbh.

Men do have that option if they wish to take, I know of single a father's one who has full custody who is stay at home Dad, one married father who part time freelances from home and is a stay at home Dad and indeed when I was growing up and my father left the army he chose to be the stay at home parent and that was 22 years ago.

Society is changing and this is an option.

JC 2K3

Yeah, tbh I don't think men are really frowned upon for being stay at home dads, it's just not hugely common right now.

Capt'n Midnight

Thaedydal wrote: »

A feminist is a person believes in feminism.

I believe feminism exists.

Would the provision of affordable child care during the day have a huge effect on the perception that women need to take a career break when having kids ?

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

That's bollix tbh.

It's not though. As has already been accepted in this discussion women do have a preference for the male provider stereotype when choosing a mate. Additionally to many women, many men will view men who are 'homemakers' as not being real men. Just because you know one case doesn't make it less rare or stigmatized.

Society is changing and this is an option.

Absolutely; however if it is to change it would need to change across the board. That does mean that women too would need to redress certain stereotypes that benefit them. Otherwise you will hit a brick wall as you can't have your cake and eat it as much as you'd like.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Yeah, tbh I don't think men are really frowned upon for being stay at home dads, it's just not hugely common right now.

It's decreasing, but it definitely there.

The Corinthian

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Would the provision of affordable child care during the day have a huge effect on the perception that women need to take a career break when having kids ?

That would help, but in the Society we live in is not enough. I start work anytime between 0830 and 0900 and leave the office never any earlier than 1800 (typically around 1830). My commute is 1 hour each way. This is not considered working late.

Find me a creche that would do those hours, affordable or not, and I'll give you a medal.

Capt'n Midnight

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would help, but in the Society we live in is not enough. I start work anytime between 0830 and 0900 and leave the office never any earlier than 1800 (typically around 1830). My commute is 1 hour each way. This is not considered working late.

Find me a creche that would do those hours, affordable or not, and I'll give you a medal.

LOL
The more I think about it the more it seems to be that you'd need a creche on site. Obviously impracticable for most existing businesses, but a small change in planning regulations would make it mandatory for new campuses / industrial estates with more than x employees. Still wouldn't solve the problem of what to do after school closes but would probably pay for itself in reduced vehicle emissions since less travelling.

Rozabeez

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yeah, tbh I don't think men are really frowned upon for being stay at home dads, it's just not hugely common right now.

I'd assume that's because they can't afford to, rather than don't want to.

Example from one of my tutorials in college, mature student states men and women aren't equal, because on bringing up his daughter alone, he felt there was something missing, a "connection" which children have with their mothers, apparently.

Now is that because he's a man? Or is that down to his own self-esteem?

In the same class, a girl of about 20 spoke out and said her father brought her up, he mother is alive but she feels a lot more connected to her father.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

So in terms of housewives and househusbands, do you think it's due to ego or financial pressure that people go out and work? I mean look at the amount of childcare required in this country, can't be due to tradition!

Blowfish

Beruthiel wrote: »

Do you believe that if a woman wanted to do those 'certain jobs' that she has every right to do so?

That is a far far more difficult question than you might think. Have a look at this for example, there are certain jobs that legally women can't do.