Women in Ireland working for free from today until 31 December

fattymuatty

fattymuatty wrote: »

I never said that these men are not pulling their weight as such but surely you can see how one person in a couple with children working long days or working away sometimes or having long commutes reduces the choices of the other person in the couple?

youre framing the working role as selfish and the caring role as self sacrifice

its a bit much tbh.

its a partnership

fattymuatty

Deleted User wrote: »

youre framing the working role as selfish and the caring role as self sacrifice

its a bit much tbh.

its a partnership

My whole point is that it very often isn't a partnership

tritium

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you ever given birth? It absolutely can take that long to recover, especially from a complicated delivery. Also, its not just to allow the mother to recover but also to facilitate breastfeeding which the WHO recommends is used as the exclusive feeding method for at least 6 months.

Ah seriously. You do realize that not every country has the level of maternity leave ireland does (and they seem to manage ok). Actually ireland is more generous here than even many European neighbors. Milk can be expressed, and indeed not every mother can or wants to breast feed. If there are other medical complications that can be managed but that’s far from the norm

tritium

fattymuatty wrote: »

My whole point is that it very often isn't a partnership

That’s not just down to men and their careers though so unless you have a solution to self interest in relationships I’m not sure what the wider societal answer is

fattymuatty

fattymuatty wrote: »

My whole point is that it very often isn't a partnership

someone works and earns money for the family. theyd rather not but thats life

someone stays home and does the domestic necessities. they'd rather not but thats life

one of these roles is the bad guy in your posts.

its been pointed out that for every way you want to spin the domestic role as a harder/lesser one, theres a way to spin the cash cow career role as negative.

Reviews and Books Galore

fattymuatty wrote: »

It's not belittling to state that in many households the husbands job comes first. Lots of women I know would also like to also be able to have very important jobs but they can't because if they don't do the childcare no one else will. I'm pointing out that it isn't as simple as 'women choose'. Children have to be picked up from creche at closing time, they have to be dropped off at opening time, they have to be looked after when ill because creches won't do it. Some men refuse to factor this into their careers so by default it falls to the woman to do it because these things are not optional. I have witnessed the husbands of many friends/relations who refuse to budge on their careers so the woman has to. That isn't a choice, you can't just leave your kid at creche for 2 hours past closing so you can do the overtime required to get ahead, or set up a webcam to watch your sick kid so as not to anger your manager when you are off with them again.

Lots of women gladly step back from their careers when the children are born but lots do it very begrudgingly because they feel they have no choice. It is very difficult to have two people in a couple working in high flying careers and have family because someone has to be there for the children.

No, the family's livelihood comes first. Also, the notion that the majority of women give up their career begrudgingly is laughable

Reviews and Books Galore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you ever given birth? It absolutely can take that long to recover, especially from a complicated delivery. Also, its not just to allow the mother to recover but also to facilitate breastfeeding which the WHO recommends is used as the exclusive feeding method for at least 6 months.

So because he's a man he shouldn't make a comment? That's absurd.

Reviews and Books Galore

fattymuatty wrote: »

My whole point is that it very often isn't a partnership

Man works outside the house, women work inside the house. Sounds like a partnership imo.



Oh, wait, the men are just smoking cigars and coming back to pee on the floor or some malarky.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I earn more than my wife does. We both work full-time in jobs that require 3rd level education, with me in management.

However, she is in the public sector and I'm private so we're both very aware that although I earn a good bit more her job is crucial from a financial security perspective. I could easily find myself redundant.

It's a partnership.

ceadaoin.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

So because he's a man he shouldn't make a comment? That's absurd.

Where did I say that ffs?

ceadaoin.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Man works outside the house, women work inside the house. Sounds like a partnership imo.



Oh, wait, the men are just smoking cigars and coming back to pee on the floor or some malarky.

In some cases both parents want to work outside the house but one ends up having to be the one who does all the parental related sick days, early finishes etc because its just expected that the other person's job is more important. This person also ends up doing the bulk of the domestic work despite also working full time. It's a fairly comments scenario and more often that not that person is the woman in the relationship. I think that's what the poster is getting at. It's a bit different than the scenario of both parents discussing what will work best for the family and one agreeing to take a backseat career wise and stay home or reduce their hours. That's a choice, the other is not really

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In some cases both parents want to work outside the house but one ends up having to be the one who does all the parental related sick days, early finishes etc because its just expected that the other person's job is more important. This person also ends up doing the bulk of the domestic work despite also working full time. It's a fairly comments scenario and more often that not that person is the woman in the relationship. I think that's what the poster is getting at. It's a bit different than the scenario of both parents discussing what will work best for the family and one agreeing to take a backseat career wise and stay home or reduce their hours. That's a choice, the other is not really

thats a terrible scenario.

that person would want to get a bit of cop on for themselves.

now, in that scenario, if one person's job is more important, can we assume that this is based on what they earn? can we assume the work involves more stress or hours or travel or whatever?

can we assume the extra income is a family income for family needs?

again, the spin here is in what is and isnt being said. people arent fools and people arent making decisions like this because they are pushovers or downtrodden

the main earner works hard for the family. the main homemaker works hard for the family.

why is one the victim of even your hypothetical arrangement?

if we assume that this arrangement is common, that the gender roles assumed are common, do ye just think women are stupid altogether?

jesus thats....pretty sexist

fattymuatty

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In some cases both parents want to work outside the house but one ends up having to be the one who does all the parental related sick days, early finishes etc because its just expected that the other person's job is more important. This person also ends up doing the bulk of the domestic work despite also working full time. It's a fairly comments scenario and more often that not that person is the woman in the relationship. I think that's what the poster is getting at. It's a bit different than the scenario of both parents discussing what will work best for the family and one agreeing to take a backseat career wise and stay home or reduce their hours. That's a choice, the other is not really

Exactly. People here are acting like the man has no choice but to go out and work long hours. In my experience the man often refuses to cut back on work in the way the woman has to. He refuses to entertain that he should stay home half of the time when the child is sick. He refuses to entertain that his job doesn't work well with having children(this is where flexible working for all would be great) and refuses to look elsewhere for a job that would. The woman is left with no choice but to step up. He says he 'can't' but the reality is the woman 'can't' either but has to because someone does and that is why her career suffers post children and the mans doesn't.

I'm not saying it is this way for everyone but it is this way for a not insignificant number of women. If you took some time to actually listen to women instead of looking for insults and being defensive over things which you probably don't even have to be defensive over you might see that.

Treppen

fattymuatty wrote: »

Exactly. People here are acting like the man has no choice but to go out and work long hours. In my experience the man often refuses to cut back on work in the way the woman has to. He refuses to entertain that he should stay home half of the time when the child is sick. He refuses to entertain that his job doesn't work well with having children(this is where flexible working for all would be great) and refuses to look elsewhere for a job that would. The woman is left with no choice but to step up. He says he 'can't' but the reality is the woman 'can't' either but has to because someone does and that is why her career suffers post children and the mans doesn't.

I'm not saying it is this way for everyone but it is this way for a not insignificant number of women. If you took some time to actually listen to women instead of looking for insults and being defensive over things which you probably don't even have to be defensive over you might see that.

Is there any stats to back this up?

Silentcorner

fattymuatty wrote: »

Exactly. People here are acting like the man has no choice but to go out and work long hours. In my experience the man often refuses to cut back on work in the way the woman has to. He refuses to entertain that he should stay home half of the time when the child is sick. He refuses to entertain that his job doesn't work well with having children(this is where flexible working for all would be great) and refuses to look elsewhere for a job that would. The woman is left with no choice but to step up. He says he 'can't' but the reality is the woman 'can't' either but has to because someone does and that is why her career suffers post children and the mans doesn't.

I'm not saying it is this way for everyone but it is this way for a not insignificant number of women. If you took some time to actually listen to women instead of looking for insults and being defensive over things which you probably don't even have to be defensive over you might see that.

She can always choose not to have kids...most women do make that choice, more women want to have children who can't, having children is very important to a lot of women, many of whom would prefer to stay at home to raise their own kids.

The same does not apply to men, the vast majority of them are happy to work the long hours, commute long distances, work shifts, or outdoors, or hard physical labour to provide for his family, most of what he earns he does not spend.

Women derive a lot of fulfillment from motherhood.
Men derive a lot of fulfillment from providing for his family.

Feminism has being lying to women for decades, there is not one shred of evidence, that as the years have passed, that women are content to work over motherhood, in fact if anything, the evidence would suggest the opposite.

Reviews and Books Galore

Silentcorner wrote: »

She can always choose not to have kids...most women do make that choice, more women want to have children who can't, having children is very important to a lot of women, many of whom would prefer to stay at home to raise their own kids.

The same does not apply to men, the vast majority of them are happy to work the long hours, commute long distances, work shifts, or outdoors, or hard physical labour to provide for his family, most of what he earns he does not spend.

Women derive a lot of fulfillment from motherhood.
Men derive a lot of fulfillment from providing for his family.

Feminism has being lying to women for decades, there is not one shred of evidence, that as the years have passed, that women are content to work over motherhood, in fact if anything, the evidence would suggest the opposite.

It's true. I'm sure men liked the laddy nature of work, getting out of the house, and did enjoy work in the same way that one enjoys a hobby, but most men were working to be a father tbh.



But, I guess now we're all just autobots working for the higher goal of...working :P

fattymuatty

fattymuatty wrote: »

Exactly. People here are acting like the man has no choice but to go out and work long hours. In my experience the man often refuses to cut back on work in the way the woman has to. He refuses to entertain that he should stay home half of the time when the child is sick. He refuses to entertain that his job doesn't work well with having children(this is where flexible working for all would be great) and refuses to look elsewhere for a job that would. The woman is left with no choice but to step up. He says he 'can't' but the reality is the woman 'can't' either but has to because someone does and that is why her career suffers post children and the mans doesn't.

I'm not saying it is this way for everyone but it is this way for a not insignificant number of women. If you took some time to actually listen to women instead of looking for insults and being defensive over things which you probably don't even have to be defensive over you might see that.

so you think women in these setups are forced into it, too weak or stupid to make their own decisions?

because you seem to be fairly well decided that a "not insignificant number" of adult women arent responsible for nor happy with the way in which they are living their lives.

very disempowering stuff

Reviews and Books Galore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah, the fact that womens earning potential takes a hit after having children and mens doesn't.

No offense, but is that the best answer you can come up with? I'm sure in public it works as most people don't like confrontation, but internet people are a little bit more bored than that :P

nkl12xtw5goz70

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In some cases both parents want to work outside the house but one ends up having to be the one who does all the parental related sick days, early finishes etc because its just expected that the other person's job is more important.

Practically speaking, most couples will regard the higher earning job as the more important. That's only rational. Sometimes that job will be the woman's. But because more women orient themselves toward lower paying careers in college, it makes financial sense in many cases for the man to work while she stays home with the sick child.

maccyd13

maccyd13 wrote: »

Losing your job because we want a women now just doesn't happen, but yes as senior workers move on to higher promotions or retired, they will and are generally replaced by women for diversity reasons.

No, you're not understanding. Various workplaces are being required to bring up their numbers of women vs men in the attempt to tackle gender diversity requirements, which means that men have already been replaced to bring in women. It's not the matter of waiting for men to retire because that would require the feminists or equal rights organisations to wait, which they're unwilling to do. HR departments and management feeling the pressure to conform (or be seen as sexist) will create reasons to remove male staff... and in this climate, they can often get away with doing so.

Obviously . Old workers will retire and not have to deal with this in their working life as much, as it is currently reaching it's peak.

You completely missed my point. Although let me put it this way. I'm 42. I'd be considered an older worker by many, but if I was still working in Management I could continue working into my late 60s. That's another 20 years. Your younger workers would need to wait some time for my retirement. You really think feminists are willing to wait that long to get women into those positions I (or others similar to me) would have occupied?

Again.. who are the younger bracket? What age group are you talking about?

Yes that's true, but you can't do anything about someone who is already in a job unless they are underperforming. Now a redundancy can be given from the businesses point of view but the businesses will be very unlikely to opt for this and thus men already in jobs will not be effected but their opportunities will be, which is the problem.

Okay, you have no idea of what it's like to be a manager. You can quite easily remove someone from a position, and place them elsewhere or fire them completely. In most cases, all that's needed is a months notice and a reasonably acceptable trumped up reason. It's not difficult in most cases, because employees break rules or show lackluster performance over time. Normally that lackluster performance is ignored in the knowledge that they'll improve later, but it can easily be used as a push to get rid of someone. It comes down to how necessary is that employee to the operation.

Yes that's true but if you mean older people being over 35. These positions are available based on experience, and after 10 years experience in a position or even sector, you will have reached a level of knowledge that in the modern day would lead you to a senior position.

Senior positions by their very nature are few in relation to the overall workforce of any business. Therefore, there's a waiting list based on seniority, but also due to a variety of other factors, such as actual experience, number of direct clients and skill.

I am aware of everything here. But you are saying that upper male staff will be effected by not being head-hunted as much?

Headhunting was an example of how upper management positions operate.. there's other ways to fill and lose upper positions.

That just is not as bad as not getting a promotion to middle management or even getting a grad job at all.

Seriously? So a mature man with a family, mortgage, debts and expenses not getting employed is less serious than a (probably) unmarried grad student with few actual debts not getting their first job? Entry level jobs are far more plentiful than upper positions... They will be affected by the female gender bias and quotas but, not as much as those seeking upper positions.. Again, because of the scarcity of such positions relative to the jobs available to your younger group.

As time goes on the senior management gender bias would even out naturally.

No, it wouldn't because it's based on time, skill and competition. 1) Most women are not interested in investing the time needed to prove their ability for upper positions... there's plenty of examples of women in industries like Law who drop out of high performance positions at 30 to start a family because they don't see the value of a marginal salary increase for a far heavier workload, along with the desire to raise a family. The motivation for men vs women is generally different. 2) Women, again in general, are far less competitive than men in the workplace, and this has been encouraged with educational reform over the last decade. They want a safe and steady progression to their career, rather than the far more dirty and fast-paced roles that usually follow those wanting higher positions. It's one of the reasons you see more women in various traditionally female dominated roles because the competition for advancement is far more regulated.

I could go on, but there's little point. These things have been said repeatedly already in various thread going back a decade.

pinkyeye

This thread needs to be in After Hours it's so hilarious with all the housekeeping jokes. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

fattymuatty

fattymuatty wrote: »

What I find fascinating about these threads on boards rather than on sites that are posted on by females in the majority is that no one on boards asks why. They say the pay gap begins when women decide to have children(like there is no input from the males in their life in that decision).

The pay gap begins before women have children. That's why women, in many industries, earn more than men before they have children, especially when you factor in all the protections and benefits being a female receive.

I see this time and time again. Husbands with their Important Jobs who 'can't' take time off for the children so it automatically falls to the mother. Or husbands with Important Jobs who can't alter their hours to suit chidcare, they 'have' to stay back at the office so the mother has to leave on the button to pick who their children because someone has to. How many men take a truly 50/50 approach to childcare(and yes I know you do, but many, many men don't.

How many companies allow fathers to take time off to be with their children? That's the question you should be asking. Most companies have allowances for mothers needing to spend time with children... because the demands of society pushed for them. There wasn't a demand from society for men to have equal rights in this regard. Instead, the role of a mother is protected and often the role of a father is downplayed or outright insulted.

Your post is just one of those examples of insulting fathers as if they have an easy choice of taking time off to spend time with their children. Mothers rights are protected by law, fathers are generally left in the background, and insulted when they ask for equal benefits.

This is before we get into the small and medium business that won't hire women of childbearing age, in the UK a third of bosses of admitted to discriminating against women for fear that they might get pregnant soon.

Businesses are... well... businesses. They need to make profits to survive. Who will bail them out when key personnel are out for extended periods? Replacements are needed, while the company is also required to pay somewhat towards the woman out on leave... There's a loss in productivity even after the woman returns along with a dilution of focus on their jobs.

I'm constantly amazed at this almost socialist attitude to work. As if business was put there to service their employees. Employees are paid to work. To be there and commit to their positions. If you're unwilling to be there, then the business will want to hire someone else who will want to be there.

Those wanting a family should and are protected but the idea that businesses should prefer women who want to start a family is absurd. If a woman decides she wants three children in four years, she'll be out of the company quite a long time, her position is guaranteed, and that's time she's not pursuing the companies interests.

It's like everyone expects companies to behave like government employment. The government is a monopoly... it doesn't need to compete with other organisations or turn an actual profit.

It sounds simple 'well women don't work as much' but I really don't believe it is as simple as a lot of men here like to believe, ie once women have children they just don't want to work as much.

Then you obviously haven't read any of the business research on the area. There's reams of research available. Go read some rather than relying on emotional statements.

lozenges

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eldercare-can-be-a-double-whammy-for-working-women-1.4078406

It's not just childcare, although that is a major factor. The point is well made by posters above that men generally do not curtail their careers in order to care for their children to anywhere near the same degree that women do. A system of parental leave similar to that which exists in Scandinavian countries would be ideal, allowing parents to split time off between them as they choose.

However something that I see discussed far less frequently is the fact that people who are full time carers for elderly family members are also disproportionately female. Again this impacts on earning differential. And in this case, unlike pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding, there's no physical reason why women should end up as the primary carer for elderly relatives. The article linked above is good, although a little light on actual statistics.

CageWager

Where do you think all this money that is being earned by men in their “important jobs” ends up? Uncomfortable truth for feminists: it goes straight into the “our money” pile which is largely used to keep women on the conspicuous consumption hamster wheel.

lozenges

lozenges wrote: »

It's not just childcare, although that is a major factor. The point is well made by posters above that men generally do not curtail their careers in order to care for their children to anywhere near the same degree that women do.

The point has been made, not argued nor proven. Fathers, in the vast majority of industries, do not have the same rights as women, and are not able to take time off. Now.. respond to that before stating that the point was well made...

However something that I see discussed far less frequently is the fact that people who are full time carers for elderly family members are also disproportionately female.

I'm not jumping for joy at the link. Irish media promotes its own agenda relating gender issues. How about some actual statistics to back up the claim?

Gynoid

I think we can all just agree that human beings of both sexes have it tough. Christ, I cannot think of one person I know who is not wrestling with something. Many with unbearable things. This battle of the sexes drives me mad.

I don't think any of this is sexism. It's just a manifestation of how humans have lived since we were hunter gatherers.

Zulu

fattymuatty wrote: »

My whole point is that it very often isn't a partnership

And who's fault is that?

maccyd13

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're not understanding. Various workplaces are being required to bring up their numbers of women vs men in the attempt to tackle gender diversity requirements, which means that men have already been replaced to bring in women. It's not the matter of waiting for men to retire because that would require the feminists or equal rights organisations to wait, which they're unwilling to do. HR departments and management feeling the pressure to conform (or be seen as sexist) will create reasons to remove male staff... and in this climate, they can often get away with doing so.

Okay, but bringing up your gender numbers to tackle gender diversity will happen on an entry level, as this will have the least effect on the outcome of the business, whilst still hitting quotas. This therefore effects graduate positions. I don’t believe that anyone who is performing well in a position will lose their job in any way simply due to public pressure. If underperforming then fair enough. But it would simply become unprofitable for HR to remove experienced well performing men from senior positions in favour of taking a chance on inexperienced women.

Deleted User wrote: »

You completely missed my point. Although let me put it this way. I'm 42. I'd be considered an older worker by many, but if I was still working in Management I could continue working into my late 60s. That's another 20 years. Your younger workers would need to wait some time for my retirement. You really think feminists are willing to wait that long to get women into those positions I (or others similar to me) would have occupied?

In regards to this, I was talking about how this simply won’t effect the older workers, they won’t lose their job until they retire in my opinion. If you can show me cases otherwise then fair enough. Again this is assuming that they are not underperforming.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again.. who are the younger bracket? What age group are you talking about?

I don’t like using age as a judge of someone but moreso their experience in a sector. Someone who started their career in marketing for example at 40, and has 3 years’ experience is the same as someone 20 with 3 years’ experience.

But to respond to your point I mean a younger bracket would generally have less than 5 years’ experience in a particular sector, usually younger than 30.

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, you have no idea of what it's like to be a manager. You can quite easily remove someone from a position, and place them elsewhere or fire them completely. In most cases, all that's needed is a months notice and a reasonably acceptable trumped up reason. It's not difficult in most cases, because employees break rules or show lackluster performance over time. Normally that lackluster performance is ignored in the knowledge that they'll improve later, but it can easily be used as a push to get rid of someone. It comes down to how necessary is that employee to the operation.

It doesn’t matter whether I have an idea of what it’s like to be a manager, common business sense says you don’t fire an employee who is performing well, nevermind the legality of it. Unfair dismissals can easily be fought in todays climate, with a minimum of a verbal warning and 2 writing warning followed by a meeting. Lackluster performance should not ignored due to the “knowledge that they’ll improve later”, you should be warned and be performing better.

Deleted User wrote: »

Senior positions by their very nature are few in relation to the overall workforce of any business. Therefore, there's a waiting list based on seniority, but also due to a variety of other factors, such as actual experience, number of direct clients and skill.

Obviously senior positions are very rare, as they should be, this is why performance is so important across a range of different categories.

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? So a mature man with a family, mortgage, debts and expenses not getting employed is less serious than a (probably) unmarried grad student with few actual debts not getting their first job? Entry level jobs are far more plentiful than upper positions... They will be affected by the female gender bias and quotas but, not as much as those seeking upper positions.. Again, because of the scarcity of such positions relative to the jobs available to your younger group.

I thought you’d use this point, but simple as, at least a “mature man…” had a job to lose in the first place. If you go a year without achieving a job after finishing college, then your degree becomes useless. That’s a loss of usually 4 years of college that has simply become outdated. This effects graduates much more long term and a lot more economical debt than an experienced person (at worst and very rarely) losing their job, they can drop a level and get a new job.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it wouldn't because it's based on time, skill and competition. 1) Most women are not interested in investing the time needed to prove their ability for upper positions... there's plenty of examples of women in industries like Law who drop out of high performance positions at 30 to start a family because they don't see the value of a marginal salary increase for a far heavier workload, along with the desire to raise a family. The motivation for men vs women is generally different. 2) Women, again in general, are far less competitive than men in the workplace, and this has been encouraged with educational reform over the last decade. They want a safe and steady progression to their career, rather than the far more dirty and fast-paced roles that usually follow those wanting higher positions. It's one of the reasons you see more women in various traditionally female dominated roles because the competition for advancement is far more regulated.

That’s fair enough, I agree but I base evening out on the assumption that women will stop planning for family and become more competitive as such due to more drive in their career, as such what feminists say will happen once “society” changes. Whether I think that this will happen or not; I don’t think it will.

I think we are both on the same side of the fence, just arguing over whether this would effect the experienced or inexperienced workers more. Little point in arguing this further, as all male workers will be effected unfairly to reach the feminists demands.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think any of this is sexism. It's just a manifestation of how humans have lived since we were hunter gatherers.

It could be. We'll never know until there is completely equal opportunity for families to share parental leave. There are also historic cultural attitudes to caregiving.

But as a men's rights issue, equal parental leave is Important so parents can arrange their family whatever way suits them best.