Sexism

busyliving

Millicent wrote: »

I think I speak for all the women here when I say I wouldn't want to work for you anyway. We're not all bloody baby machines, you know.

Well its a women's choice to have a baby, not your bosses so why should your boss be put out by your choice to have a kid

Anny Hall

There is actually a very interesting discussion in the ladies lounge about this if you dare? This whole men have it worse is such a pointless way of highlighting issues of sexism towards men.

Both genders experience sexism in very different ways. Comparing them in the same manner is futile.

I find it ironic that some men who hate feminism for its man hating are blinded to their own women hating.

Try some empathy for the opposite sex, don't make them the enemy.

sebastianlieken

@Harrythehat

As mentioned before, it probably isn't the best approach to specify a fixed timetable for when the mum & dad can take their time off. It would be more suited to leave that decision to the discretion of the indivual family. Some women need lots of time, some woman don't. It's different for every household situation.

In many cases the woman is infact the higher earner of the two. So it seems practical that the woman goes back to work building upon her career while dad stays at home.

I think the 8 month allowance should be there for mum & dad to share as they see fit. 100% optional. The main stipulation is that at LEAST one of them remain in work at any one time under the scheme.

- after all, it's not at all taking a right or a privelage away from any woman. It's simply giving the dad the same opertunity and giving the mum a broader right and privelage. everybody wins!!!

number10a

harrythehat wrote: »

To my mind, a woman needs longer because she has gone through a considerable trauma physically during childbirth, and emotionally as well.

In addition to this, breastfeeding is important during the first few months, and if we want to continue supporting this then we need to leave women's entitlements as they are.

And as I have suggested, leaving it up to the couple is a logical compromise here. Some women need longer, some don't. Friend of mine had a baby and said she was rearing to go back to work after three days. I thought she was mad, but still, that's her choice. And as I have already pointed out, many women earn a lot more than their spouses/partners do so it may make economic sense for the man to be allowed take her leave if that's what they both want to do so that she can go back to work, put food on the table and keep the mortgage out of arrears.

Many women do not breastfeed, and giving the couple the choice to let dad take some time off does not undermine the woman's right to breastfeed in any way, shape or form. It's not like we're discussing doing away with maternity leave so your argument re: breastfeeding is null and void. She would still have a choice.

wolf moon

Yeah, all that sexism and equality thing is very dodgy.
It's sexism and discrimination when a woman can't be a CEO on 500.000+ but it's being considered of a good manner not to let her go working down in a coal mine. And in fairness haven't seen many women in the mines, I've seen plenty of CEO's though :rolleyes:

pickarooney

Any man that would want his wife to earn less for any reason is a retard.

wolf moon

pickarooney wrote: »

Any man that would want his wife to earn less for any reason is a retard.

What about those who don't give a sh1t?

The King of Moo

Giving the parents the option to divide the 8 months seems like the best option.

The mother taking the first four months off to recover from the pregnancy and breastfeed the child would probably be a good idea.

But we're all ignoring the real issue here: it's a guaranteed fact that there are women out there having babies just for a council house the maternity leave, with the taxpayer footing the bill of course! :eek:



:pac:

sebastianlieken

this is true king of moo. (rhyme... awesome..)

Many women are insentivised to have kids at a young age so they get free council housing. Many women arnt doing anything anyway so decide a baby will increase their income via child allowance. Then they realise the more kids you have, the more you get per child! so more and more babies, more maternity leave, more money. Many women will even just go to their doctor and get them to sign a post-natal depression cert in which case they get ANOTHER 4 months off work.

That will continue regardless. whole different kettle of fish!

WindSock

keano_afc wrote: »

Sexism is an easy thing to understand. When its directed at women, its sexism. When its directed at men, its "having a laugh".

Nah, when it's directed at women it's unfounded and they are just playing the victim and it's they who are the real sexists.

When its directed at men, it's becoz feminizm.

pickarooney

If there was an extra J it would be sexjism.

Just sayin'

The King of Moo

sebastianlieken wrote: »

this is true king of moo. (rhyme... awesome..)

Many women are insentivised to have kids at a young age so they get free council housing. Many women arnt doing anything anyway so decide a baby will increase their income via child allowance. Then they realise the more kids you have, the more you get per child! so more and more babies, more maternity leave, more money. Many women will even just go to their doctor and get them to sign a post-natal depression cert in which case they get ANOTHER 4 months off work.

That will continue regardless. whole different kettle of fish!

Oh. I was actually just kidding when I wrote that.

Surely women couldn't be so casual about being pregnant to have babies just to get more money.

I'm no expert, but I hear pregnancy's tough, especially the labour!

WindSock

pickarooney wrote: »

If there was an extra J it would be sexjism.

Just sayin'

Or if it would began with V it'd be vexism. As in I am vexed to f.uck with 'sexism' threads in AH.

Nervous Wreck

I can't believe there was an opportunity for me to accuse society of denigrating me because I have a penis and it's already on page 3. Now I'll never get thanks for a witty remark about how wimmins have it sweet and men are basically slaves.

sebastianlieken

The King of Moo wrote: »

Oh. I was actually just kidding when I wrote that.

Surely women couldn't be so casual about being pregnant to have babies just to get more money.

I'm no expert, but I hear pregnancy's tough, especially the labour!

In that case you'de be horrifically surprised. In NI, girls who have kids under the age of 18 get instant social housing. You really think that wouldn't be taken advantage of?! + child allowance abuse here in the ROI, you think that doesn't go on?!?!

It's why there are so many knackers! knackers get paid to breed. middle class are the cash cows.

The King of Moo

sebastianlieken wrote: »

In that case you'de be horrifically surprised. In NI, girls who have kids under the age of 18 get instant social housing. You really think that wouldn't be taken advantage of?! + child allowance abuse here in the ROI, you think that doesn't go on?!?!

It's why there are so many knackers! knackers get paid to breed. middle class are the cash cows.

I doubt it happens too often. I've never heard of a single documented case of it happening.

And even the worst mother will still have to take care of the child to some extent, so it's not as though they pop the baby out and completely forget about them and spend all the money on themselves.

I think a more likely explanation is that some people don't like working and aren't too careful about contraception.

K-9

busyliving wrote: »

Well its a women's choice to have a baby, not your bosses so why should your boss be put out by your choice to have a kid

Jaysus, not much chance of getting paternity leave with that attitude.

Attitude from men would have to change as well if we got paternity pay. Sweden brought it in but found men didn't really take it up. Took a big change in attitudes for it to become the norm.

Ghost Buster

Just a tad off topic but I need to share:

I just had a vasectomy!!!!!:eek:

K-9

sebastianlieken wrote: »

In that case you'de be horrifically surprised. In NI, girls who have kids under the age of 18 get instant social housing. You really think that wouldn't be taken advantage of?! + child allowance abuse here in the ROI, you think that doesn't go on?!?!

It's why there are so many knackers! knackers get paid to breed. middle class are the cash cows.

Well the young pregnancy figures are dropping here so the message is getting home.

There isn't actually that much SW in having an extra child, extra child dependent allowance of about €25 a week and the bit of children's allowance which has been continuously cut.

The type of stuff you are on about are usually confined to inner city areas, Dublin and Limerick in particular. They are a very small section of single parents so it would be a bit dumb to base that much on them. Very controversial and anti pc though which is always fun.

strobe

punk77 wrote: »

TBF, women do carry the child inside them for 9 months. How many men,if it were possible, would be willing to do that?

I'd give it a bash sure. I'd also expect more parental/recent pregnancy/what ever it'd be called leave than my wife who didn't carry the kid, if I did.

Personally I think this 'the woman that had the baby and packs the udders getting more leave is sexist' stuff is cringey.

Bloody mascunazis. :pac:

coffee_cake

ScumLord wrote: »

There's also the unavoidable point that in general women are better at raising children, they're physically adapted to it.

Wha?

ScumLord

bluewolf wrote: »

Wha?

Their body is physically adapted to baring and raising children. They have boobs that expel milk, fact.

coffee_cake

ScumLord wrote: »

Their body is physically adapted to baring and raising children. They have boobs that expel milk, fact.

i wasnt sure how you got from the milk to the "generally better at raising children" is all