nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

RyanthePirate

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
DelaneyIn
TheCitizen
V8 Interceptor
Hamachi - lifted 14/03/22, reinstated 28/03/22
Effects
biko
Kivaro
Eric Cartman
Swindled
Gradius
RobbieTheRobber - lifted 25/08/21 - reinstated 27/08/21
Cordell - lifted 16/08/21
Gangster Yippin
blindjustice
Eircom_Sucks
TomSweeney
Wojtek the Bear
Cordell
klaz
0ph0rce0
tonium22
tonycascarino
Real Donald Trump
Star Bingo
Nuts102
TomTomTim
Nosler
Absolute Zero
Hungry Burger

Find more posts tagged with

racism

i-am-a-racist-but...

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

seenitall wrote: »

Isn’t that about how things are here right now, anyway? In terms of infrastructure and public services, for example. Tbh, I’ve never envisaged Ireland would get anywhere near the top tier with these things anyway. It seems to prefer pouring its money into the Social Welfare aspect, rather than say infrastructure.

While i agree that that's where their focus is.. I don't think Ireland is currently at similar level to Finland who has gone through it's periods of being poor, and are now emerging as a relatively stable economy. Basically, it's where Ireland was just over a decade ago.

TBH that focus on social welfare is a major part of the problem, and I don't see Ireland's economy maturing to be robust until we move away from that expenditure. Sure, it makes for great soundbites, but it's incredibly expensive to maintain, and the very nature of it, ensures that it grows in scope every decade.

TomTomTim

Sand wrote: »

They're not unrelated. Look at the HR and leadership for any multi-national corporation. Wall to wall cheerleading for multiculturalism. Any country which welcomes US or EU investment is very quickly going to find itself berated into 'welcoming' multiculturalism. Multinationals like multiculturalism because they prefer economic zones where people define themselves by the product they consume only.

Speaking of HR, why is it so female dominant? As a job hunter, I've found that nearly all HR I've dealt with have been female.

[Deleted User]

TomTomTim wrote: »

Speaking of HR, why is it so female dominant? As a job hunter, I've found that nearly all HR I've dealt with have been female.

You need to consider the 80s/90s in the US then, as HR became a department of importance. Around the same time, women moved from universities (after studying women's studies, psychology, etc), into the workplace searching for somewhere to apply their opinions on equality. HR was the perfect place to end up in, since it appealed to the "soft" skills side of things, and also, appealed to those who loved administration (most administration departments will also have a majority of women). The women who were stuck as secretaries found a new place to move to since their skills had importance there, and with the rise in importance of organisational behavior, it made sense to employ women from these traditional roles. The gender stereotype of women being more emphatic and sensitive helped too... as men were considered too focused on other roles to be interested in HR. And so, HR became populated with women and gay men.

Then, as time went by, with greater changes in the law about women in society and the workplace, women became the experts on how those laws should be applied in the workplace. Most men just wanted to get on with their work, and weren't very interested in how those laws would be applied. Women stepped up, and took control, shaping how HRM would develop.

[Deleted User]

TomTomTim wrote: »

Speaking of HR, why is it so female dominant? As a job hunter, I've found that nearly all HR I've dealt with have been female.

I had the ‘pleasure’ of attending an all-day workshop on inclusiveness before lockdown. Some of it was actually fine. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; love thy neighbor etc..Basically a common sense approach to being a decent human being.

My employer is extremely diverse. There are people from ~50 countries and all sorts of backgrounds working there. Predictably, some of this seminar focused on the multicultural milieu and the responsibility of Irish employees to extend the hand of friendship to others.

The two HR reps delivering the seminar were both Irish in their late 20s / early 30s. There was a pretty amusing incident during the multiculturalism module. An older man, clearly of Asian background, piped up and asked the instructors (paraphrasing) if they saw any contradiction in a seminar on diversity being hosted by two young, good looking, blond haired and blue eyed Irish people.

You could have heard a pin drop in the room and both HR reps turned an intense shade of scarlet. Needless to say they moved on pretty quickly. To me, it just reinforced my impression of HR. Ultimately, they’re just there to parrot company propaganda and to ensure that employees behave within certain parameters that do not compromise profitability. Behind the rhetoric, they don’t give a crap about diversity and inclusion. Their sole focus is $$$$$.

[Deleted User]

Hamachi wrote: »

You could have heard a pin drop in the room and both HR reps turned an intense shade of scarlet. Needless to say they moved on pretty quickly. To me, it just reinforced my impression of HR. Ultimately, they’re just there to parrot company propaganda and to ensure that employees behave within certain parameters that do not compromise profitability. Behind the rhetoric, they don’t give a crap about diversity and inclusion. Their sole focus is $$$$$.

I think it depends a lot on where the company headquarters is, since typically the HR central committee will be there. I did a spot of consulting work for a Belgian company, in China, who were extremely focused on HR aspects. They didn't need to implement such policies in China, but with a mixed group of expats and Chinese staff, there were myriad ways in which HR managed the behavior of the staff. Part of my own contract, stipulated that I would follow their system while I worked at any of their offices.

They'd taken on most of the crap coming out of the US in regards to gender awareness, and racial discrimination including subconscious bias as being a factor in all interactions, and most meetings had a HR representative there to ensure that everyone was treated with respect. Basically, everyone walked around on egg shells, and I certainly didn't see any time where a male worker would be allowed to be alone with a female worker without some HR presence.. and most meetings were recorded for "evidence" should it be needed.

They were a highly successful company providing construction equipment to the Chinese market, including skilled staff to train Chinese people... but... it was a very uncomfortable place to work. On the surface it looked great with so many rules to ensure respect between staff (which can often be lacking in international companies) but there was genuine fear of what HR would decide about peoples interactions. The HR staff I met were very dedicated to their roles... all being highly qualified professionals from Europe (male and female).

So, I wouldn't be so quick to write off HR as being only a $$$ orientated group. It depends on the company itself, and I've heard from friends working for some Scandinavian companies, that it's even worse there. Virtue signalling, and paranoia about what people might be getting up to without being observed..

Sand

Hamachi wrote: »

You could have heard a pin drop in the room and both HR reps turned an intense shade of scarlet. Needless to say they moved on pretty quickly. To me, it just reinforced my impression of HR. Ultimately, they’re just there to parrot company propaganda and to ensure that employees behave within certain parameters that do not compromise profitability. Behind the rhetoric, they don’t give a crap about diversity and inclusion. Their sole focus is $$$$$.

Yes and no. What use has a company for an indigenous, homogeneous country/workforce that identifies with something other than Apple, Netflix and superhero movies? In the US, corporations like Amazon monitor the homogeneity of the workforce in their facilities. They understand that a diverse multicultural workforce is less likely to organise or unionise. So they ensure their branches are diverse and inclusive to nip any worker solidarity in the bud. It's no surprise that as the UK has got more diverse, union membership has plummeted. In a similar manner 'anti-racism' training in the workplace has been made mandatory by companies like Google and Target. This training is only effective in the sense that it entrenches further division among workers, making it less likely they will organise.

They may not give a damn about those things in their own right, but they're not doing them carelessly. Multinationals and multiculturalism are two sides of the same coin.

Geuze

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The CSO has released interesting stats from 2018.

The natural increase in the population is falling sharply unfortunately.

https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2020pressreleases/pressstatementvitalstatisticsannualreport2018/

We have a serious structural problem in the country with ever more women not having enough children or any children at all.

What does this mean? Ultimately if standards of living are to be maintained, it is a statement of fact we need more and more immigrants to make up these shortfalls.

What is the solution? We desperately need to make changes that make it more attractive for women to be able to work and start having children, preferably at a younger age than the average 32 years now.

If we need to take action to increase fertility, and I don't think we're quite at that point yet, why not encourage families here to have more children?

Must immigration be the solution?

zimmermania

Sand wrote: »

Yes and no. What use has a company for an indigenous, homogeneous country/workforce that identifies with something other than Apple, Netflix and superhero movies? In the US, corporations like Amazon monitor the homogeneity of the workforce in their facilities. They understand that a diverse multicultural workforce is less likely to organise or unionise. So they ensure their branches are diverse and inclusive to nip any worker solidarity in the bud. It's no surprise that as the UK has got more diverse, union membership has plummeted. In a similar manner 'anti-racism' training in the workplace has been made mandatory by companies like Google and Target. This training is only effective in the sense that it entrenches further division among workers, making it less likely they will organise.

They may not give a damn about those things in their own right, but they're not doing them carelessly. Multinationals and multiculturalism are two sides of the same coin.

Do you reckon Dev was right after all? Dancing at the xroads,women stay home,produce more children and none of this birth control and control of their bodies,wishful thinking man,we aint going back to the dungeon days.

Yellow_Fern

Hamachi wrote: »

My employer is extremely diverse. There are people from ~50 countries and all sorts of backgrounds working there. Predictably, some of this seminar focused on the multicultural milieu and the responsibility of Irish employees to extend the hand of friendship to others.

The two HR reps delivering the seminar were both Irish in their late 20s / early 30s. There was a pretty amusing incident during the multiculturalism module. An older man, clearly of Asian background, piped up and asked the instructors (paraphrasing) if they saw any contradiction in a seminar on diversity being hosted by two young, good looking, blond haired and blue eyed Irish people.

You could have heard a pin drop in the room and both HR reps turned an intense shade of scarlet. Needless to say they moved on pretty quickly. To me, it just reinforced my impression of HR. Ultimately, they’re just there to parrot company propaganda and to ensure that employees behave within certain parameters that do not compromise profitability. Behind the rhetoric, they don’t give a crap about diversity and inclusion. Their sole focus is $$$$$.

Because everyone knows a doctor can not treat cancer until they have had it themselves, gynaecologists can never be men and dentists with bad teeth are not able to do dentistry. These HR people may be just parroting corporate propaganda but they were not being hypocritical.

zimmermania wrote: »

w
Do you reckon Dev was right after all? Dancing at the xroads,women stay home,produce more children and none of this birth control and control of their bodies,wishful thinking man,we aint going back to the dungeon days.

Dev said anything about dancing at the crossroads. Given that Devs wife wrote 31 books in her life I think we can presume he did not seek to ban married women from working.

biko

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The CSO has released interesting stats from 2018.
The natural increase in the population is falling sharply unfortunately.
We have a serious structural problem in the country with ever more women not having enough children or any children at all.

Isn't that what the left wanted?

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What is the solution? We desperately need to make changes that make it more attractive for women to be able to work and start having children, preferably at a younger age than the average 32 years now.

We can do what Hungary do and reward young couples that have children. That way we don't have to replace Irish people with immigrants but simply reproduce ourselves.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hungarian-govt-offers-huge-incentives-for-families-to-have-more-kids

[Deleted User]

zimmermania wrote: »

w
Do you reckon Dev was right after all? Dancing at the xroads,women stay home,produce more children and none of this birth control and control of their bodies,wishful thinking man,we aint going back to the dungeon days.

And there's the feminist influence on modern thinking.

The use of absolutes, as if to suggest that such a lifestyle couldn't be different from what went before... and combined with the other belief that women were completely without choice or influence in the past. It rarely holds up to honest/unbiased examination though.

Two sides of a coin to push women away from traditional roles, and instead to embrace a career lifestyle that, increasingly more women state is lacking in value (beyond the monetary returns, and even there, many are opting out)

Modern society would allow women to have the freedoms/rights they currently have, while also having larger families. Benefits for men to stay at home would remove many of the issues, but either women don't want to give up their 'more suitable' status, or there's little pressure to implement the schemes suggested so far. Rather than insulting fathers in society, perhaps it's time to start supporting them, since they could take up whatever pressures that are so difficult for women (apart from the obvious biological aspects)

seenitall

Deleted User wrote: »

And there's the feminist influence on modern thinking.

The use of absolutes, as if to suggest that such a lifestyle couldn't be different from what went before... and combined with the other belief that women were completely without choice or influence in the past. It rarely holds up to honest/unbiased examination though.

Two sides of a coin to push women away from traditional roles, and instead to embrace a career lifestyle that, increasingly more women state is lacking in value (beyond the monetary returns, and even there, many are opting out)

Modern society would allow women to have the freedoms/rights they currently have, while also having larger families. Benefits for men to stay at home would remove many of the issues, but either women don't want to give up their 'more suitable' status, or there's little pressure to implement the schemes suggested so far. Rather than insulting fathers in society, perhaps it's time to start supporting them, since they could take up whatever pressures that are so difficult for women ( apart from the obvious biological aspects)

I think there is a lot of cultural stuff at play with these issues. Ireland is still conservative in many aspects, socially speaking. Back in the old country, a friend has a high flying career and the hubbie is a stay at home dad (4 kids). I think this state of affairs is much more rare over here than the continent. If there are a good few kids in the house, almost invariably it is the mother that stays at home. Now I’ve no stats for any of this, it’s purely observation, as I grew up over there and have been a mum at the school gates over here. Like observing the disparity of women in politics in Europe vs. here. It’s not huge, but it’s there.

zimmermania

Deleted User wrote: »

And there's the feminist influence on modern thinking.

The use of absolutes, as if to suggest that such a lifestyle couldn't be different from what went before... and combined with the other belief that women were completely without choice or influence in the past. It rarely holds up to honest/unbiased examination though.

Two sides of a coin to push women away from traditional roles, and instead to embrace a career lifestyle that, increasingly more women state is lacking in value (beyond the monetary returns, and even there, many are opting out)

Modern society would allow women to have the freedoms/rights they currently have, while also having larger families. Benefits for men to stay at home would remove many of the issues, but either women don't want to give up their 'more suitable' status, or there's little pressure to implement the schemes suggested so far. Rather than insulting fathers in society, perhaps it's time to start supporting them, since they could take up whatever pressures that are so difficult for women (apart from the obvious biological aspects)

A feminest?,i will take it as a compliment,in the 1970s while campaigning for a socialist candidate in the general election a group of us were canvassing in a reasonably large rural village.

When we were finished knocking on doors we went to the local pub for a drink and to use the toilet.

When we entered the bar one of the guys in our group said to me "what would think if the bar was full of women rather than men" at 1 oc on a sunday afternoon.

I looked around me and saw about 20 men drinking and the only women were the two that came in with us.

It took me a while to understand the point he was making,a bunch of men of all ages getting half pissed before going home to the sunday roast (no going out to sunday lunch in those days) and thinking this was normal as it happened in all the pubs of ireland.

I was glad of the man's perception in those dark days,

[Deleted User]

seenitall wrote: »

I think there is a lot of cultural stuff at play with these issues. Ireland is still conservative in many aspects, socially speaking. Back in the old country, a friend has a high flying career and the hubbie is a stay at home dad (4 kids). I think this state of affairs is much more rare over here than the continent. If there are a good few kids in the house, almost invariably it is the mother that stays at home. Now I’ve no stats for any of this, it’s purely observation, as I grew up over there and have been a mum at the school gates over here. Like observing the disparity of women in politics in Europe vs. here. It’s not huge, but it’s there.

Old country? Ahh.. nah. I've no idea what you're referring to. It's not like we're American, talking about Europe.

Typically, it makes little financial sense for the father to stay at home while the mother works. There's far more supports available for mothers than there are for fathers, both legally and in society. Women get away with more absences from work, than a man would.. including a far greater chance at flexi-time, or some other work scheme for mothers. It's just the way things are. The advantages are firmly directed towards women, so... why give them up, just so that the father stays at home instead of the mother. Now... if there was equality for fathers and mothers, then I expect you'd see more fathers staying at home, simply because women can make more money in many jobs than men depending on the industry.

As for the difference in politics. There isn't the interest. If Irish women wanted to be career politicians, they would be. Except they're not. There are no barriers to them running for office, building a network of supporters, etc but they're simply not interested in that kind of work. I've noticed the people most interested in women being in politics, have no interest in doing so themselves, and expect others to do the work...

Oh, sure, some women are, and they do participate, and some will reach higher positions... but it's worth considering how many men participate at various levels of politics, and never get anywhere. Since the focus is on genders, rather than individuals, it's easy to miss that large percentage of males who enter politics never succeed. Nobody cares, because they're looking at genders.

andy2323

biko wrote: »

Isn't that what the left wanted?

We can do what Hungary do and reward young couples that have children. That way we don't have to replace Irish people with immigrants but simply reproduce ourselves.

It's not about the left.vs right. In most countries it's been the trend for a while. E.g.: Japan has an extremely homogeneous society, with strong male-female role and generous benefit schemes for babies. They have been trying for 10+ years and still fail to increase birth rate. China also have a hard time convincing its citizens to have more children. And it's still quite expected for women to quit their career to take care of the family in these societies. Throwing money at the problem doesn't make it go away.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

multi-nationals : jobs and investment
multi-culture : rape gangs, economic drain and violence.

Didn't "Irish need not apply" happen not that long ago? Victims become bullies quickly it seems. Let's stereotype because it's easier than critical thinking.

FWIW the Irish immigration system has extremely favoured the educated ones that pay the awful 40%+ tax to the gov. For once the gov knows what they are doing. It's set up for the multinationals to bring their workforce with them. If asked, most of them would rather move to London where they at least get prime location for similar high rent. They are funding the social security system in place of the Irish emigrants.

[Deleted User]

zimmermania wrote: »

A feminest?,

Nope. Not what I said.

i will take it as a compliment,in the 1970s while campaigning for a socialist candidate in the general election a group of us were canvassing in a reasonably large rural village.

<snip>

I was glad of the man's perception in those dark days,

So... no relevant response then. Ok.

[Deleted User]

andy2323 wrote: »

It's not about the left.vs right. In most countries it's been the trend for a while.

In developed countries.

E.g.: Japan has an extremely homogeneous society, with strong male-female role and generous benefit schemes for babies. They have been trying for 10+ years and still fail to increase birth rate.

The problem for Japan is cultural. The focus on work commitment and being productive, along with the hierarchical nature of their organisations means that employees, are required to work very long hours, often forced to go drinking with their colleagues or bosses after work. Start early at work, and finish late. And due to the high costs of properties in the cities, most have long commutes after work to go home. Between the cost in time, the stress involved, and other considerations, many couples barely see each other (especially if both are working), and due to the stress, fertility rates have dropped considerably.

Then there's also been a culture of shame regarding sex growing in Japan for the last two generations, with many people deciding to become celibate since they feel they're not getting what they want from it. Having babies just brings a ream of extra costs (in time and money), so many prefer to skip it entirely.

China also have a hard time convincing its citizens to have more children. And it's still quite expected for women to quit their career to take care of the family in these societies. Throwing money at the problem doesn't make it go away.

China has different issues. There's never been an accurate census done for China's population, with all amounts being estimates. Due to local party corruption, a massive migrant population which moves around, etc, it's very difficult to get a reasonably accurate figure for China.

The real problems for China, though, is it's abortion culture and lowering fertility among Chinese people. Having a child outside of marriage is still a huge deal, with many turning to suicide as a result. Abortion is commonplace, and you can see advertisements for it everywhere... and at very low prices. (the suicides happen because you need to use your government ID for the abortion, and it'll be reported to the parents). So, they have a really large amount of babies being aborted each month... which cuts into their population growth.. which is becoming even more of an issue nowadays with the CCPs morality movement.

The second issue is due to pollution and low quality foodstuffs/water. Fertility rates across China are dropping considerably, and it's been linked to trace elements in the water, and the extremely dodgy food that's often available. China has a street food culture, with people eating out at restaurants more than at home, so they're ingesting foods which aren't healthy. Combined with the air pollution, this has caused serious problems for fertility, and fertility clinics are all the rage at the moment. As is getting someone other than your wife to carry the child, and give birth, since so many miscarriages have happened over the last decade or so.

And then there's the rising costs of living, the demands on working harder, etc. It all adds up.

Didn't "Irish need not apply" happen not that long ago? Victims become bullies quickly it seems. Let's stereotype because it's easier than critical thinking.

So.. apply some critical thinking rather than dismissing what he said.

andy2323

Deleted User wrote: »

In developed countries.

And then there's the rising costs of living, the demands on working harder, etc. It all adds up.

It's not just developed countries. It's one of the biggest problems for developing countries. There's a term for that: getting old before getting rich. csis[.]org/analysis/will-many-developing-countries-get-old-they-get-rich

And as you said, clearly throwing the money at the problem doesn't fix it.

Deleted User wrote: »

So.. apply some critical thinking rather than dismissing what he said.

His sentence is a slippery slope. And I'm pointing out it is for what it is.

seenitall

Deleted User wrote: »

Old country? Ahh.. nah. I've no idea what you're referring to. It's not like we're American, talking about Europe.

Typically, it makes little financial sense for the father to stay at home while the mother works. There's far more supports available for mothers than there are for fathers, both legally and in society. Women get away with more absences from work, than a man would.. including a far greater chance at flexi-time, or some other work scheme for mothers. It's just the way things are. The advantages are firmly directed towards women, so... why give them up, just so that the father stays at home instead of the mother. Now... if there was equality for fathers and mothers, then I expect you'd see more fathers staying at home, simply because women can make more money in many jobs than men depending on the industry.

As for the difference in politics. There isn't the interest. If Irish women wanted to be career politicians, they would be. Except they're not. There are no barriers to them running for office, building a network of supporters, etc but they're simply not interested in that kind of work. I've noticed the people most interested in women being in politics, have no interest in doing so themselves, and expect others to do the work...

Oh, sure, some women are, and they do participate, and some will reach higher positions... but it's worth considering how many men participate at various levels of politics, and never get anywhere. Since the focus is on genders, rather than individuals, it's easy to miss that large percentage of males who enter politics never succeed. Nobody cares, because they're looking at genders.

It’s just the way things are? Well perhaps there are reasons for the way things are? Like, cultural ones? For example, where I come from used to be communist, so everyone worked (more accurately, everyone had a job, heh) and childcare was cheap and plentiful. Women worked the hours that men did, it was just standard. So that culture stayed after the fall of communism. Kind of, equality of opportunity in most spheres of life, which meant the non-gendered views on who gets paid what and for what work. The supports that are there for the home staying parent aren’t gendered. Are they in Ireland? The salaries that are garnered in the professions aren’t gendered. Are they so in Ireland? Because if they are, then I understand what you are saying and why things are as they are in Ireland. But if that is not the case, then I would say that the reason that “ it’s just the way things are”, is more cultural than anything else. After all, culture will influence economic policies such as a greater chance at flexitime or some other work scheme, to be directed solely at one sex. That sounds wrong to me.

As for politics, again, culture. Why else would women not be interested in this work? It is vital work, but also long hours and a lot of dedication needed. Women in Ireland seem to want to be running more closely to a traditional role, and less time spent at work. That’s culture. Unless there are some significant obstacles to their greater participation... which would probably bring us back to the same word, anyway.

TomTomTim

andy2323 wrote: »

Didn't "Irish need not apply" happen not that long ago? Victims become bullies quickly it seems. Let's stereotype because it's easier than critical thinking.

If wanting my country to function at its best, its most cohesive, makes me a bully in your eyes, then I'll accept the label. Posters like yourself never bring up the cost of anything, all you do is try and use history against people, without any care for the road that lays ahead of us. The dream of functional multiculturalism has not found a home, and likely never will, so we'd be better to cut our losses, than continuing an experiment that clearly doesn't work.

Sand

andy2323 wrote: »

It's not about the left.vs right. In most countries it's been the trend for a while. E.g.: Japan has an extremely homogeneous society, with strong male-female role and generous benefit schemes for babies. They have been trying for 10+ years and still fail to increase birth rate. China also have a hard time convincing its citizens to have more children. And it's still quite expected for women to quit their career to take care of the family in these societies. Throwing money at the problem doesn't make it go away.

Hungary has been throwing money at the problem and it is working for them. Good policy affects outcomes. Otherwise whats the point of government?

It's set up for the multinationals to bring their workforce with them.

Exactly.

Sand

One point that I think is being missed in the feminism vs. children debate, is that women are not making a choice to not have children, or have fewer children. Women are actually having less children than they want to have. This has been studied in the US which one presumes doesn't have many cultural hangups

As a result, the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years. (From 1972 to 2016, men have expressed almost exactly the same ideal fertility rates as women: In a given year, they average just 0.04 children below what women say is ideal.)

There is no dispute between men and women. Its not a feminism vs. patriarchy argument. Men and women both want to have more children than they actually end up having. If anything, women want the (slightly) bigger family. If women were having the 2.7 children they wanted in life, then we would have no issues whatsoever. But they're not. Government policy can help if this is actually identified as a valuable goal for society.

Eric Cartman

Sand wrote: »

One point that I think is being missed in the feminism vs. children debate, is that women are not making a choice to not have children, or have fewer children. Women are actually having less children than they want to have. This has been studied in the US which one presumes doesn't have many cultural hangups

There is no dispute between men and women. Its not a feminism vs. patriarchy argument. Men and women both want to have more children than they actually end up having. If anything, women want the (slightly) bigger family. If women were having the 2.7 children they wanted in life, then we would have no issues whatsoever. But they're not. Government policy can help if this is actually identified as a valuable goal for society.

Its kind of a funny one, the movement that freed women from being housewives and gave women ‘all the options’ took away one of the options they want the most. Men arent looking to have children till their mid to late 30s , taking away time to even have more children. Additionally most men will not get into a relationship with a woman who plans to drop out of the workforce, which limits that option. Two incomes, career drive and having children later and less of them are a modern necessity almost.

seenitall

When I was a student, I had a stint au pairing in a big family (5 kids). It wasn’t too dissimilar to running a small, customer-facing business. Always someone’s needs waiting to be met and a goodly amount of physical work to be undertaken every day (cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, serving food etc.) I think modern Europeans have lost the yen for this. The society has individualised and there are other things to actualise oneself through, more rewarding and more satisfying to People’s ego. Sure, it’s nice to say it would be ideal to have 3 or more children, however reality shows up that the outcome of having 2 won’t be much different (you still get to have a family, and in most cases some grandchildren as well), it will just be much cheaper, less strenuous and less time-consuming than having 3,4,5 etc. You can take 2 children travelling anywhere easily, it’s not too much of a hassle. When the number of people grows, so does the hassle, the expense and the time involved. The cost to benefit ratio is not that appealing, the higher the number.

The cultures where this kind of consideration is immaterial are the ones where poverty and lack of education means big influences will be religious ones, with the religious command to procreate, and where all the work required falls on to the shoulders of the woman of the house, which is no consideration at all, because the woman doesn’t get to have an opinion on this. She is a domestic servant and a baby-making machine. While such systems are allowed to flourish in western societies, it is a golden ticket for these men; western Welfare feeds all their numerous babies, while women do all the work. The system is not about individual actualisation but sticking to their community and its way of life, and perpetuating the religion and culture-driven inequalities. Once these women start to become more westernised in their behaviours, the birth rate plummets. You have ‘honour’ killings and burkas precisely in order to keep women knowing their place and on track to churning out as many religious new humans as possible.

Sand

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its kind of a funny one, the movement that freed women from being housewives and gave women ‘all the options’ took away one of the options they want the most.

I recall someone summarized feminism as the belief that a woman working for her employer's benefit is free, whereas a woman working for her family's benefit is a slave. I'd add that you could say something similar about men. Arguably, feminism as an ideology is beneficial to corporate interests: what use have they for housewives? It's one less employee to drive down wages and one less consumer to boost spending. Individuals are far more profitable than families.

Falling birthrates aren't even a problem for them, they can always import more consumers/employees from abroad.

Sir Oxman

Hamachi wrote: »

I had the ‘pleasure’ of attending an all-day workshop on inclusiveness before lockdown. Some of it was actually fine. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; love thy neighbor etc..Basically a common sense approach to being a decent human being.

And that is all that needs to be said in any company, group, institute etc.
That's it, above.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

Arguably, feminism as an ideology is beneficial to corporate interests: what use have they for housewives? It's one less employee to drive down wages and one less consumer to boost spending. Individuals are far more profitable than families.

Falling birthrates aren't even a problem for them, they can always import more consumers/employees from abroad.

Very much so and one big reason why feminism got such a push over the last 30 years. It's got little enough to do with equality or freedom. In many ways one drudgery replaced another. Never mind the media's near constant push to make women feel insecure and in need of the dopamine hit of consumerism to "improve them".

Funny, but funnier because of recognition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlJ_jCLHmo

Eric Cartman

Wibbs wrote: »

Very much so and one big reason why feminism got such a push over the last 30 years. It's got little enough to do with equality or freedom. In many ways one drudgery replaced another. Never mind the media's near constant push to make women feel insecure and in need of the dopamine hit of consumerism to "improve them".

Funny, but funnier because of recognition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlJ_jCLHmo

its the same reason all these companies are #BLM , #pridemonth , politicians are pandering to caring about migrants etc... its that feel good factor that women respond to. They're responsible for over 80% of consumer spending and over 85% of credit card debt. If you want to sell, sell to women.

Guy:Incognito

What a charming lady mrs Barrett is

https://twitter.com/RebBarrettNP/status/1323817647738396678?s=19

Wibbs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What a charming lady mrs Barrett is

https://twitter.com/RebBarrettNP/status/1323817647738396678?s=19

Sure what would you expect from a pig but a grunt.