Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

joe40

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything ive said.

My understanding of your post was that if someone (male or female) takes time off for childcare then this will automatically hinder career progression in relation to someone that couldn't have children or decides against children. You seem to think this is fair. (Maybe that is an inaccurate reading of your post)
My point is that having children and childcare is important for everyone, society in general in the long term, therefore why can we not ensure work practises are such that people, male or female but predominately female, are not negatively affected by childcare responsibilities.
The role they are taking on, probably only for a few years out of a potential 40 plus years of working life, is extremely important for everyone.

I just think it is defeatist to say if you spend a few years rearing kids then career must automatically suffer. We can do better than that.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , its the section of society that seems to think that taking a career break to have a child and being the primary carer of a child and as a result not having the same career outcomes as somebody who has not done that is infuriating.

You cannot be parent of the year and employee of the year. Its not a gender wage gap its a primary parent wage gap , anything done to try ‘resolve’ this is inherintly predjudiced against people who chose not to / are unable to have children and thats an injustice.

Better ability to share parental leave any way the couple wants, would help address this. Instead of describing the carer career disadvantage in terms of gender (women are the ones with the option to take maternity leave - clue is in the title). It should be parental leave.

Aufbau

Aufbau wrote: »

From my experience I see Irish society becoming much more caring over the years. Think back to the wooden spoon and heavy hands on children, slaps and straps in school, girls put out of the house, industrial schools, very little social welfare, very little charity except for the'black babies' etc

Look a bit closer and change a few verbs and nouns and you might find that not as much has changed. In 1949 children were "farmed out" to "institutions", in 2019 they are "put in" "businesses" (crèche/childcare/raised by outsiders). In 1949, child abuse was much more often physical abuse; in 2019 the most common form of child abuse is, in actual fact, neglect. How many very busy parents with two jobs are guilty of that today? How many kids are given technology to keep them quiet/away from the parents? Yes, we dress it up - but then again, for instance, weren't those mother and child homes "Christian charity" in their day? And so on.

Alas, it usually takes decades before people see their own day with the clarity in which they can see society 40 years or so ago. As the 1950s had its vested interests in keeping those blinders on, our decade has its vested interests with a similar need for blinders.

Eric Cartman

joe40 wrote: »

My understanding of your post was that if someone (male or female) takes time off for childcare then this will automatically hinder career progression in relation to someone that couldn't have children or decides against children. You seem to think this is fair. (Maybe that is an inaccurate reading of your post)
My point is that having children and childcare is important for everyone, society in general in the long term, therefore why can we not ensure work practises are such that people, male or female but predominately female, are not negatively affected by childcare responsibilities.
The role they are taking on, probably only for a few years out of a potential 40 plus years of working life, is extremely important for everyone.

I just think it is defeatist to say if you spend a few years rearing kids then career must automatically suffer. We can do better than that.

I think its quite fair that somebody who dedicates their life to their career instead of having children can excel more than those who make that choice, rearing children is important but its inherrintly unfair to say that you can swan off for a while to do that and at the end you can achieve the exact same as somebody who out the extra months/years in.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think its quite fair that somebody who dedicates their life to their career instead of having children can excel more than those who make that choice, rearing children is important but its inherrintly unfair to say that you can swan off for a while to do that and at the end you can achieve the exact same as somebody who out the extra months/years in.

It depends. We all acknowledge that we need people to have children to replace ourselves (over population arguments aside). Who will pay for the public services when you're old except the people born to adults today.

I wouldn't mind whether the shortfall is partially mitigated by the state through benefits to Compensate for the time a worker takes to raise their children.

But primarily I think the option of parental leave to raise children should be open to men and women equally.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends. We all acknowledge that we need people to have children to replace ourselves (over population arguments aside). Who will pay for the public services when you're old except the people born to adults today.

I wouldn't mind whether the shortfall is partially mitigated by the state through benefits to Compensate for the time a worker takes to raise their children.

But primarily I think the option of parental leave to raise children should be open to men and women equally.

Parental leave should be a joined time budget split however a couple see fit , that i agree with down to the ground , but I dont think anyone taking time off work for kids or anything else should get a free pass to just rejoin the workforce at the same pay/level as somebody who dedicated their whole time to their career.

The state already massively subsidises having children. No need for additional monetary benefit

LirW

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The state already massively subsidises having children. No need for additional monetary benefit

Compared to other Western European countries, no. And I'm not talking about brood mares by profession, overall they're not the standard.
You mean free primary and secondary education is subsidising children? Yes sure, having an educated population is a bad thing.
Or are you talking about the 140 every child in this country is entitled to? For working parents this is a drop in the ocean.

I don't see where childcare is subsidised when parents are working. It's good fun handing double your mortgage per month over to a childcare provider. Compare that with other Northern European or west European countries and tell me again how heavily subsidised children are.

God beware you need a pension one day or a carer. Or good infrastructure or good medical care.

Eric Cartman

LirW wrote: »

Compared to other Western European countries, no. And I'm not talking about brood mares by profession, overall they're not the standard.
You mean free primary and secondary education is subsidising children? Yes sure, having an educated population is a bad thing.
Or are you talking about the 140 every child in this country is entitled to? For working parents this is a drop in the ocean.

I don't see where childcare is subsidised when parents are working. It's good fun handing over double your mortgage per month over to a childcare provider. Compare that with other Northern European or west European countries and tell me again how heavily subsidised children are.

God beware you need a pension one day or a carer. Or good infrastructure or good medical care.

Child be efit, fis, free education, that working family payment, lone parents allowants, eccenchikd places, free GP care for under 12s is it now, medical cards for kids etc... we do quite a lot. Nobody is doubting the need for children in the future and that should be helped for people who want kids , but for those who dont, there should be no policy that hinders them excelling at their careers or hands those with children a free pass to excel in their chosen absense.

Childcare costs are unreasonably high and sallaries are quite low for staff, where the bulk of that money goes is insurance and health/safety training and proceedures. Lower those costs and you’ll save there

LirW

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Child be efit, fis, free education, that working family payment, lone parents allowants, eccenchikd places, free GP care for under 12s is it now, medical cards for kids etc... we do quite a lot. Nobody is doubting the need for children in the future and that should be helped for people who want kids , but for those who dont, there should be no policy that hinders them excelling at their careers or hands those with children a free pass to excel in their chosen absense.

Childcare costs are unreasonably high and sallaries are quite low for staff, where the bulk of that money goes is insurance and health/safety training and proceedures. Lower those costs and you’ll save there

Free education is standard across the EU and only a good thing. Working family payment and FIS is the same thing and the cut-off point is quite low, we got it for a little while.
ECCE places only lift a small amount off childcare costs because it's 3 hours a day. It helps but the bill is still astronomical. Children don't have free medical cards by default and GP visit cards are still only for under 6s. And honestly a GP visit card is a godsend, hopefully you don't have to use it that much.

Most of the above only really are a game changer for low income families or single parents. For a couple where both work it's tough luck, you most likely don't qualify for FIS, no childcare reductions under the CCS. Don't get me wrong, I want struggling parents to be helped, I once was one of them.

But when I compare it how much I paid for my son in healthcare, childcare fees etc, it was only a small percentage. All his doctor visits were free because they are for every child. Under the age of 3 his 45hour childcare was 360 a month and from 3 on it was nil. Only 35 euro a month food contribution.
If you'd be a really well off couple your childcare for over 3 would be around 250-300 for a full time place.

What we need most is well-educated couples having children. But they are the one group that decides against them more and more. Not only because women want to have a career, but because the cost of having them is crazy high in Ireland for the middle class and plenty aren't bothered when more and more have to rent or even share into their early 30s.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Parental leave should be a joined time budget split however a couple see fit , that i agree with down to the ground , but I dont think anyone taking time off work for kids or anything else should get a free pass to just rejoin the workforce at the same pay/level as somebody who dedicated their whole time to their career.

The state already massively subsidises having children. No need for additional monetary benefit

The benefit system should keep up with changing realities in people's lives. The fact is that children are becoming more and more expensive. Childcare costs alone are shocking. So I don't think there should be a simplistic cut off point for benefits for parents.

I think it's clear that you shouldn't get promoted while on leave, for example. But I'm fine with keeping your job while on parental leave. I think it's unfair on business to pay the pi resin on leave and the person to replace them. I think the state should pay the parent's wage while they're on Ieave.

bloodless_coup

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

"Don't be a dick" what with the sh1tty misogyny.

What was misogynistic about it?

Aufbau

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think anyone taking time off work for kids or anything else should get a free pass to just rejoin the workforce at the same pay/level as somebody who dedicated their whole time to their career.

I think the idea is that they rejoin at the same level as they left it. Why shouldn't they? The person who stayed working has risen to a higher level by then if they're any good.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe someone who takes time out to have children that replenish society should have their goodwill and sacrifice rewarded by higher pay when they rejoin the workforce, to make up for the financial disadvantage they've experienced.

Eric Cartman

Aufbau wrote: »

I think the idea is that they rejoin at the same level as they left it. Why shouldn't they? The person who stayed working has risen to a higher level by then if they're any good.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe someone who takes time out to have children that replenish society should have their goodwill and sacrifice rewarded by higher pay when they rejoin the workforce, to make up for the financial disadvantage they've experienced.

Thats what happens now, but many feminists rally against. Its the ‘wage gap’ they talk about which is almost non existant before children,

Many feminists want a woman who takes 18 months off to have 2 kids and then leave work early / take days for every little cough their kids have to be cent for cent as well paid as a man who will be in every day, go on every busoness trip and has never taken any extended time off.

Thats unfair.

Aufbau

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats what happens now, but many feminists rally against. Its the ‘wage gap’ they talk about which is almost non existant before children,

Many feminists want a woman who takes 18 months off to have 2 kids and then leave work early / take days for every little cough their kids have to be cent for cent as well paid as a man who will be in every day, go on every busoness trip and has never taken any extended time off.

Thats unfair.

You mean if he's doing the same job as she is?

And he's been paid his full salary/wages for the time he was working?

Sounds like you think employers should pay according to loyalty as in the old public service method of promotion according to experience.

Neyite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Better ability to share parental leave any way the couple wants, would help address this. Instead of describing the carer career disadvantage in terms of gender (women are the ones with the option to take maternity leave - clue is in the title). It should be parental leave.

It should be. Ideally it should be a minimum of 6 weeks post partum leave to go to the mother and if the OBGYN is happy she's made a full recovery physically the remainder of the leave could be split between a couple.



But...Maternity leave length correlates to the WHO minimum recommended length of breastfeeding though. So breastfeeding rates will fall if women go back to work earlier than that despite people's best intentions.

El_Duderino 09

Neyite wrote: »

It should be. Ideally it should be a minimum of 6 weeks post partum leave to go to the mother and if the OBGYN is happy she's made a full recovery physically the remainder of the leave could be split between a couple.



But...Maternity leave length correlates to the WHO minimum recommended length of breastfeeding though. So breastfeeding rates will fall if women go back to work earlier than that despite people's best intentions.

If WE want women to breastfeed, then WE should be willing to compensate them for taking time out of their career to do it. I'm willing to pay the tax to make the funds available.

Neyite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If WE want women to breastfeed, then WE should be willing to compensate them for taking time out of their career to do it. I'm willing to pay the tax to make the funds available.

I am too. Our system is pretty decent here, if a bit inflexible for some. I got 11 months out of the maternity leave between holidays accrued and the leave itself, so was fairly happy with that.

El_Duderino 09

Neyite wrote: »

I am too. Our system is pretty decent here, if a bit inflexible for some. I got 11 months out of the maternity leave between holidays accrued and the leave itself, so was fairly happy with that.

That sounds good. More options for men to take parental leave would be better. Men can't really breastfeed except pre expressed milk.

ExoPolitic

joe40 wrote: »

The children born now are going to be the ones paying your pension. The type of society you and I spend our "elderly years" in largely depend on the adults todays children become and the type of society they create.
Childcare, and raising well educated adults is everyone's business.

Free secondary education transformed this country but the effects weren't felt immediately.

To such an extent that now it is detrimental to those who are just becoming of working age. It's almost like a compulsory debt to burden and another few years where they can not work.

Need a degree now to start most jobs except the very basic of the basic jobs.

ExoPolitic

Deleted User wrote: »

You speak of this as if working outside the home is yet another one of those simple "free choices" which free mark fundamentalists love to spout about. In reality, for most couples in Dublin they are compelled to work outside the home in order to pay the mortgage (as well as to not be financially penalised by the tax individualisation which McCreevy brought in years ago, loss of pension and so much else).

In 1970, for instance, the same Dublin house which could be bought on a single income now requires two incomes. Apparently because we now have 100 satellite channels of ineffable rubbish that compensates for this most fundamental decline in living standards. The capitalist system now gets two people to work for what it could only get one person to work for before. Another victory for "individual freedom" and "individual choice", it seems. So please desist with this disingenuous "free choice" claptrap - at least until Irish governments start to spread employment opportunities and economic growth to cheaper housing areas of Ireland/beyond Dublin.

PS: You do realise that your pension will be paid out of the state's current expenditure whenever you retire (and your private pension is not, in reality, guaranteed) and therefore if people took your advice to heart and stopped having children now, you'd be in a bit of a bind then?

No, I agree with you, but in todays world we have to live in the present. And in the present, it is a choice to make. Its just facts, raising children has never been so expensive either.

sk8erboii

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Firstly.

I am a young woman.

This is not an attack on other women or other opinions. It's not to undermine other women intentionally. However I cannot control your feelings in reaction to what i say. So i will just try and say it as kindly as I can.

This is just my opinion based on my observations.

Also I don't consider myself 'RIGHT WING' at all. I just try to be the best person i can be. Somethings are not acceptable. Racism homophobia etc is just backward.

I think Trump is a moron.

Yet ...i am not a feminist.

I am not a feminist because I think the whole idea of feminism is a worship of masculinity. There is nothing WRONG with masculinity. Its very useful.

But well men do it better than women.

I think there are things that are just male and female traits. There was a kibutz study that found even when girls and boys where raised the same. They ended up conforming to gender norms.

Everything that has been traditionally masculine has been respected. Aggression etc competitiveness. Everything female has not. Even WOMEN respect them more. Todays women respect aggression and business acumen much more than traditional sensitivity and caring. They look on their grandmothers with SCORN and not respect.

Stay at home moms are scorned.

They raise their daughters to be 'STRONG' not emotionally expressive.

No wonder women want to espouse traits and characteristics they can respect. They want to be men.

We are LOSING the kindness in our society as a result.

We are less caring. We are losing the mother archtype.

You are now free to laugh at me.

And go on I shall not mind :pac:

I am a good sport.

We are too different to be equal.

It's important to teach feminine traits to women. Yes more important than it is to teach it to men. Why? Because we are better at it.

My god. Thats not the equality people are fighting for. The right to vote, right to use the same facilities, ride the same buses.


Its gone over your head but at least you got your pat in the back for virtue signaling

Kidchameleon

Bar the trump bashing, OP is wife material