Feminist Men

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 01:42PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Aren't they simply being rewarded for the future funding of the country.

'Non-breeders' are not in a position to benefit as they will provide no tax-payers.

That's not discrimination.

It's still technically discrimination.... Just pointing that out to the people who get very very so terribly upset by discrimination.

iwantmydinner · 25-07-2013 01:52PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's still technically discrimination.... Just pointing that out to the people who get very very so terribly upset by discrimination.

Should we stop getting upset at discrimination??

There's a huge difference between this discrimination (allowing someone take time off work because they've just had a baby) and the discrimination feminists challenge. Don't pretend there isn't.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 02:08PM

strobe wrote: »

Ah come off it, you're just being daft now.

It's 'technically discrimination' in the way me not being offered a free smear test despite my distinct lack of a cervix is 'technically discrimination'.

No hold on.
So you want the state to pay for maternity leave. (I don't mean you specifically)
Now you want the state to pay for paternity leave too.

It's discriminatory time off work based on reproductive choices.

I'm not universally anti discrimination btw, just pointing this one out.

MaxWig · 25-07-2013 02:12PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

No hold on.
So you want the state to pay for maternity leave.
Now you want the state to pay for paternity leave too.

It's discriminatory time off work based on reproductive choices.

I'm not universally anti discrimination btw, just pointing this one out.

No, its time off work based on the fruit of those choices.

No time off work for three years on IVF.

starling · 25-07-2013 02:29PM

"Discrimination" is generally used to describe unfair treatment (I'm simplifying a bit here) but person x getting something person y doesn't get isn't always unfair.
The problem is people understanding "fairness" as "everyone gets exactly the same" but that's a very simplistic and reductive understanding of the concept of "fairness."
If you have no kids and a colleague has a baby, and they get paid time off to recover from the birth/care for the baby then yes, they are getting something you're not getting. But them getting paid time off is not taking anything away from you. You're still doing your job and getting paid for it as you agreed in your employment contract.
Frankly you'd want to be pretty small-minded and petty to complain that "your one over there is getting paid time off and i'm not so that's not fair." It is fair because someone else is getting something they need, and you're not getting it because you don't need it the way they do.
Maternity leave is not a holiday. A new parent is using that time to work. It's not the kind of work your company does; you might not think it benefits anyone but a new parent is literally making the next generation. Who, by the way, will be paying your pension.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 02:36PM

starling wrote: »

"Discrimination" is generally used to describe unfair treatment (I'm simplifying a bit here) but person x getting something person y doesn't get isn't always unfair.
The problem is people understanding "fairness" as "everyone gets exactly the same" but that's a very simplistic and reductive understanding of the concept of "fairness."
If you have no kids and a colleague has a baby, and they get paid time off to recover from the birth/care for the baby then yes, they are getting something you're not getting. But them getting paid time off is not taking anything away from you. You're still doing your job and getting paid for it as you agreed in your employment contract.
Frankly you'd want to be pretty small-minded and petty to complain that "your one over there is getting paid time off and i'm not so that's not fair." It is fair because someone else is getting something they need, and you're not getting it because you don't need it the way they do.
Maternity leave is not a holiday. A new parent is using that time to work. It's not the kind of work your company does; you might not think it benefits anyone but a new parent is literally making the next generation. Who, by the way, will be paying your pension.

I am we'll aware of that and of the recovery new mothers have to make and that its not a holiday etc.

However, it is still discrimination. I agree that something person a gets that person b doesn't isn't always unfair. That is kind of my point, that egalitarianism can at times be unjust because it does not consider the individual.

On the other hand it would be foolish and unfair not to recognise that when employees take time of work extensively, it does affect others. Their co workers have to compensate for example, and the boss may have to hire a temp. Or in the public services, such as medical, your village may be down a doctor. Or maybe your senator will not be showing up to represent ou in the dail. So yes it can and does affect others.

Maternity/paternity leave is the tip of the iceberg. The problem is a bigger and longer one in terms of family and childcare. Partisan politics would be much better off colluding to make it a family issue, rather than a male/female one, rooting it in economics, and starting with why schools are out during the summer, making childcare yet another impossibility.

I'm disappointed that the man in the OP did not talk about family and instead stayed on the issues of violence.

strobe · 25-07-2013 02:46PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

No hold on.
So you want the state to pay for maternity leave. (I don't mean you specifically)
Now you want the state to pay for paternity leave too.

It's discriminatory time off work based on reproductive choices.

I'm not universally anti discrimination btw, just pointing this one out.

you're quick! I deleted that pretty much as soon as i posted it due to what I felt was a sub par simile, below my usual standard - simile wise...

... but now it's preserved for everyone to see... Oh the shame :pac:

But whatever about that... I think you misunderstand the proposal re:paternity leave. The idea isn't to have 6 months (or whatever maternity leave is) and then add an extra 6 months on top for paternity leave - totalling 12 months... The idea is to have parental leave, rather than maternity or paternity, the same amount of time, 6 months or whatever, but the parents choose how to divide it up between themselves - Mother takes one month and Father takes the remaiming 5, or Mother takes 3 and Father takes 3, or both take nothing, or Mother takes all 6. Whichever suits them best.

So the tax payer isn't getting doubly screwed as you (not you specifically) see it.

Sleepy · 25-07-2013 03:12PM

clairefontaine, I was always under the impression that something could only be discrimination if it was based on issues one has no control over: age, gender, race, disability etc.

"Rewarding" new parents with parental leave is no different than giving tax breaks on pension contributions: it's rewarding a behaviour that's desirable to the state.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 03:19PM

Sleepy wrote: »

clairefontaine, I was always under the impression that something could only be discrimination if it was based on issues one has no control over: age, gender, race, disability etc.

"Rewarding" new parents with parental leave is no different than giving tax breaks on pension contributions: it's rewarding a behaviour that's desirable to the state.

Discrimination can be based on a number of things. Take hiring for example. It can be based on things you have no control over, like race, gender, disability or on things you do have control over, marital status, address, children.

How is parental leave beneficial to the state btw? Are you suggesting people will stop having kids if they get six weeks unpaid leave? And there won't be any future populations to replenish the pension funds?

MaxWig · 25-07-2013 03:20PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Discrimination can be based on a number of things. Take hiring for example. It can be based on things you have no control over, like race, gender, disability or on things you do have control over, marital status, address, children.

How is parental leave beneficial to the state btw? Are you suggesting people will stop having kids if they get six weeks unpaid leave? And there won't be any future populations to replenish the pension funds?

You honestly can't see how it would benefit the state?

iwantmydinner · 25-07-2013 03:22PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's discriminatory time off work based on reproductive choices.

I still don't see what the problem is with this.

starling · 25-07-2013 03:22PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am we'll aware of that and of the recovery new mothers have to make and that its not a holiday etc.

However, it is still discrimination. I agree that something person a gets that person b doesn't isn't always unfair. That is kind of my point, that egalitarianism can at times be unjust because it does not consider the individual.

On the other hand it would be foolish and unfair not to recognise that when employees take time of work extensively, it does affect others. Their co workers have to compensate for example, and the boss may have to hire a temp. Or in the public services, such as medical, your village may be down a doctor. Or maybe your senator will not be showing up to represent ou in the dail. So yes it can and does affect others.

So does sick leave, are you saying that it's "unfair" to let someone have time off to recover from an accident or illness without worrying abot losing their job, seniority or salary?

clairefontaine wrote: »

Maternity/paternity leave is the tip of the iceberg. The problem is a bigger and longer one in terms of family and childcare. Partisan politics would be much better off colluding to make it a family issue, rather than a male/female one, rooting it in economics, and starting with why schools are out during the summer, making childcare yet another impossibility.

I'm disappointed that the man in the OP did not talk about family and instead stayed on the issues of violence.

I don't know what you mean by "partisan politics" but most people recognise this as a family issue. For example a lot of feminists would be in favour of paternity leave because medical issues aside, maternity leave perpetuates the notion that childcare is primarily the woman's responsibility. Fathers have just as much right as mothers to take some time to bond with and enjoy their new baby, and many would love to be able to take that time without hassle from their employers or loss of pay.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 03:24PM

MaxWig wrote: »

You honestly can't see how it would benefit the state?

No I can't. People will still reproduce. There will still be a labor force. No jobs either, but that's another story.

I'm not anti maternity leave or paternity leave, just pointing out that its discriminatory and if you support it you can't claim to be unilaterally anti discrimination.

starling · 25-07-2013 03:25PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Discrimination can be based on a number of things. Take hiring for example. It can be based on things you have no control over, like race, gender, disability or on things you do have control over, marital status, address, children.

How is parental leave beneficial to the state btw? Are you suggesting people will stop having kids if they get six weeks unpaid leave? And there won't be any future populations to replenish the pension funds?

The fact that technically you might have control over whether you are married, or have children, or your address (not everyone has control over that one btw) does not mean that it's okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of those things. It is not good for the individual or for society if they have to factor in the possible discrimination they may face in their work when they are deciding whether to get married or have children.

iwantmydinner · 25-07-2013 03:26PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not anti maternity leave or paternity leave, just pointing out that its discriminatory and if you support it you can't claim to be unilaterally anti discrimination.

As I said above:

There's a huge difference between this discrimination (allowing someone take time off work because they've just had a baby) and the discrimination feminists challenge. Don't pretend there isn't.

clairefontaine · 25-07-2013 03:44PM

starling wrote: »

The fact that technically you might have control over whether you are married, or have children, or your address (not everyone has control over that one btw) does not mean that it's okay to discriminate against someone on the basis of those things. It is not good for the individual or for society if they have to factor in the possible discrimination they may face in their work when they are deciding whether to get married or have children.

It's along the lines of being pro affirmative action and anti racial profiling or anti affirmative action while also being pro racial profiling.

People discriminate. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes its not ok. Parental leave is discrimination, based on parental status. Whether its ok or not ok, is not an argument I'm making here, just pointing out it is discriminatory and not treating everyone as equals. It's not treating everyone THE SAME. Why not? because we are not all the same.

iwantmydinner · 25-07-2013 04:14PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

People discriminate. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes its not ok. Parental leave is discrimination, based on parental status. Whether its ok or not ok, is not an argument I'm making here, just pointing out it is discriminatory and not treating everyone as equals. It's not treating everyone THE SAME. Why not? because we are not all the same.

I really don't understand what you're saying, but anyway I'm not sure what it has to do with the OP

GalwayGuy2 · 25-07-2013 04:18PM

It's not treating everyone THE SAME. Why not? because we are not all the same.

That was a pretty interesting discussion

It was kind of more of an individualist perspective that you don't often get.

It does raise the question whether or not the remaining employees should be paid more, if a new staff member isn't called in.

starling · 25-07-2013 05:04PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

That was a pretty interesting discussion It was kind of more of an individualist perspective that you don't often get.

It does raise the question whether or not the remaining employees should be paid more, if a new staff member isn't called in.

Even though I wish this thread could get back on topic (Im as guilty as anyone else for the derail) that's an interesting point. If they've done extra work over and above their own responsibilities then yes, that should be reflected in their pay in some way. But hiring a temp is really better because if you can get along fine without one of your employees then you probably have too many employees

MaxWig · 26-07-2013 08:03AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

No I can't. People will still reproduce. There will still be a labor force. No jobs either, but that's another story.

I'm not anti maternity leave or paternity leave, just pointing out that its discriminatory and if you support it you can't claim to be unilaterally anti discrimination.

That's silly on a number of levels.

Firstly, unilaterally anti-discrimination?

I could never claim that - nor could anyone.

I assume you discriminate whom you devote your attention to.
Giving presents to family and friends, and completely ignoring those you see on the street?

Choosing to shop in one store because you simply prefer it, risking the careers of those in the other stores.

Providing the disabled with parking spaces closer to the shop door.
For that matter, providing mother and babies with parking spaces closer to the shop door.

All discriminatory.

And if you agree with these aspects of modern life - what a faux-egalitarian you are!!

You are describing discrimination in its broadest definition.

And in its broadest definition, it covers a lot.

clairefontaine · 26-07-2013 03:09PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

That was a pretty interesting discussion It was kind of more of an individualist perspective that you don't often get.

It does raise the question whether or not the remaining employees should be paid more, if a new staff member isn't called in.

And who should pay for it. Or if parental leave should be unpaid if other employees ended up with your workload. I assume when people talk about equal paternity leave they want the social welfare state to cover the cost, but the social welfare doesn't give the company extra money to cover an extra employer does it?

So if you push for equality hard enough what you might both end up getting is six weeks unpaid parental leave.

iwantmydinner · 26-07-2013 03:48PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

And who should pay for it. Or if parental leave should be unpaid if other employees ended up with your workload. I assume when people talk about equal paternity leave they want the social welfare state to cover the cost, but the social welfare doesn't give the company extra money to cover an extra employer does it?

So if you push for equality hard enough what you might both end up getting is six weeks unpaid parental leave.

Businesses are run for humans, by humans, using human labour. If business owners are unwilling to accept that humans will go and have human babies, and therefore require parental leave, or that they will go and have human illnesses, and require sick leave, and that there will be a cost attached to that, then a serious re-think is needed.

The bit in bold is pure and utter exaggeration.

Morag · 26-07-2013 04:33PM

The antiroom do podcasts and occasionally public ones, the most recent one was What about the men. Donnelly Stephen td took part and this is what he was wearing.

794025994.jpg?1374832838

clairefontaine · 26-07-2013 09:25PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Businesses are run for humans, by humans, using human labour. If business owners are unwilling to accept that humans will go and have human babies, and therefore require parental leave, or that they will go and have human illnesses, and require sick leave, and that there will be a cost attached to that, then a serious re-think is needed.

The bit in bold is pure and utter exaggeration.

It's not an exaggeration. It's what American women are legally entitled to. Any more than that is up to the generosity of the employer.

My point is when people advocate for fairness and equality they tend not to think of what the consequences of that could potentially mean. Might be fair to you, but might not be fair to the person carrying your workload and still getting the same pay or the people of a small village who can't see the doctor because s/he is on parental leave.

If you look at maternity leave from a health perspective, as in recovery time, then there is no reason to advocate for paternity leave too. If you look at it for time to spend time with your we arrival, then that's another thing altogether but it means twice as much absenteeism and more costs to small businesses.

starling · 26-07-2013 11:05PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's not an exaggeration. It's what American women are legally entitled to. Any more than that is up to the generosity of the employer.

My point is when people advocate for fairness and equality they tend not to think of what the consequences of that could potentially mean. Might be fair to you, but might not be fair to the person carrying your workload and still getting the same pay or the people of a small village who can't see the doctor because s/he is on parental leave.

If you look at maternity leave from a health perspective, as in recovery time, then there is no reason to advocate for paternity leave too. If you look at it for time to spend time with your we arrival, then that's another thing altogether but it means twice as much absenteeism and more costs to small businesses.

Why wouldn't the doctor in your example arrange a locum?

clairefontaine · 26-07-2013 11:32PM

starling wrote: »

Why wouldn't the doctor in your example arrange a locum?

Because doctors costs money. The same reason any business might not hire another person to do your job, which you still get paid for, in your absence.

Rev Hellfire · 27-07-2013 07:41AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because doctors costs money. The same reason any business might not hire another person to do your job, which you still get paid for, in your absence.

Keep in mind your employer is under no obligation to pay you while on maternity leave, unless stated in your employment contract. The state guarantees your payment.

biko · 27-07-2013 07:52AM

NiallSparky wrote: »

"No one is free until we are all free."

Ní saoirse go saoirse na mBan

My own view on feminism is really about lifting women's importance up, not dragging men's importance down.
I think it needs to be done mainly through the workplace and can be either by allowing women into male dominated jobs or increasing salaries for typical women's job, thus increasing the status for those jobs.

starling · 28-07-2013 04:37AM

biko wrote: »

Ní saoirse go saoirse na mBan

My own view on feminism is really about lifting women's importance up, not dragging men's importance down.
I think it needs to be done mainly through the workplace and can be either by allowing women into male dominated jobs or increasing salaries for typical women's job, thus increasing the status for those jobs.

This is the thing a lot of people don't seem to get about feminism, from the outside it looks as if it's about taking something away from men, that's not what it's about. Feminists don't hate men. We don't like the unfairness in the patriarchal system, we think women should be treated fairly, it's not about "punishing" men.

GalwayGuy2 · 28-07-2013 09:45AM

This is the thing a lot of people don't seem to get about feminism, from the outside it looks as if it's about taking something away from men, that's not what it's about. Feminists don't hate men. We don't like the unfairness in the patriarchal system, we think women should be treated fairly, it's not about "punishing" men.

Hmm, all of that is true only if the theory of male privilege is true.

Feminist Men

Comments