Women in Ireland working for free from today until 31 December

Gynoid · 12-11-2019 3:42pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

....waiting until they can take 2 years off to have kids and sure they wont be expected to go back to anywhere near fulltime work till both kids are in school and even then , sure they’ll be 45 odd by the time they even have the time to consider 40 hours a week and sure at that point you may aswell go back to college , that brings you to 50 then you get a part time book keeping job or something and boom 65 rolls round and youve achieved nothing.

Perhaps you have inadvertently described the life of your mother, or many of her friends, or certainly your grandmother, or her buddies, and also the lives of many women throughout time and space, who mostly raised families and kept a home and did other tasks including earning around thay. And to describe such a life as "achieving nothing" is very harsh.
Between them and the loved ones who supported them they achieved everyone you see around you.

This " achievement" lark always gives me pause for thought. Apart from some definite measurable contributions to the welfare of ones fellow humans - eg in medicine, teaching, etc - Im not so sure much of the working world is really achieving anything all that fantabulous in the average working life except a weeks pay. Which is grand. And I include myself in the cohort - I enjoy my work but achievement is ephemeral and aught to be kept in perspective. Most work doesnt exactly make the eyes water or the heart thump. Selling insurance, IT products, making botox or plastic items, processed food, banking or financial instrument inventions, playing expensively with legalese, being paid a small fortune to shine the seat of your pants as a politician - I could go on forever with examples of Bullsh1t jobs.
Life is more than a job, or even "achievement".

Eric Cartman · 12-11-2019 4:55pm

Gynoid wrote: »

Perhaps you have inadvertently described the life of your mother, or many of her friends, or certainly your grandmother, or her buddies, and also the lives of many women throughout time and space, who mostly raised families and kept a home and did other tasks including earning around thay. And to describe such a life as "achieving nothing" is very harsh.
Between them and the loved ones who supported them they achieved everyone you see around you.

This " achievement" lark always gives me pause for thought. Apart from some definite measurable contributions to the welfare of ones fellow humans - eg in medicine, teaching, etc - Im not so sure much of the working world is really achieving anything all that fantabulous in the average working life except a weeks pay. Which is grand. And I include myself in the cohort - I enjoy my work but achievement is ephemeral and aught to be kept in perspective. Most work doesnt exactly make the eyes water or the heart thump. Selling insurance, IT products, making botox or plastic items, processed food, banking or financial instrument inventions, playing expensively with legalese, being paid a small fortune to shine the seat of your pants as a politician - I could go on forever with examples of Bullsh1t jobs.
Life is more than a job, or even "achievement".

Theres no issue with being a home maker but its the societal stigma thats been placed on it or whatever other factors that practically force women to engage in this rigmarole of filling time until they can settle down with children. Think of the wasted educational resources and professional upskilling when it would be easier to just be alright with women saying they dont want a career

12-11-2019 5:28pm

maccyd13 wrote: »

I only meant recently as far as I am aware. I didn't hear much about gender bias against men prior to this decade, at least not at the current levels.

Gender bias has always been a "thing". It just balanced out because there are many industries where women make up a fair amount of Mid level management. Consider Finance for example. People never talk about the areas where there are many female executives, and finance has always had many female managers from low to mid management. Hiring bias exists in all industries regardless of the industry, and the bias extends to more than just Gender.

Not sure why I should, I only gave my own opinion and experience. I'm not interested in reading articles on management practices just yet.

Okie dokie.

I completely agree with you here, excuses are being made for sexism constantly, and this impacts real people.

Um, there are fake people? The problem with sexism is that it's becoming institutionalized. Feminists fought to take sexism out of institutions, and now, feminism is fighting to put it back in. Just a different target for the sexism, although many women who don't conform to the Feminist way of life are also affected..

Long term, it will be affecting the younger bracket much more as they have not reached middle/upper positions yet, and for those on the receiving end of these decisions may not get to reach these positions for no reason other than their gender. Yes, the current senior workers are under criticism, but no one will lose their job because of their gender, come on like.

They already have lost their jobs. Gender quotas for management and committee positions have replaced men with women. That's also happened in the education sector at third level institutions. Same with a wide variety of work schemes to place women in positions that were felt to be lacking in "diversity".

As for "long term", younger workers will become the older workers.

(Although, I have to wonder what age bracket you mean by "young".)

Management is the target because it's the most well paid. Feminists won't accept that it's that way because of the hours required or the sheer amount of work involved along with the health problems associated with such lifestyles. Which is why they'll continue to push women into those positions, and demand that women receive greater benefits to compensate them... while decreasing the usefulness of males at the same time.

If you have a senior position, you will face criticism but no actual results, whereas those males applying for middle/upper positions may never reach their aspirations purely because of gender.

That doesn't make sense. In any case, in most companies, promotion to upper positions is based on seniority and the ability to bring in clients/profits. It will remain an area for older people, simply because it takes that long for younger people to learn the mechanics of the various levels of management or executive lifestyle, along with proving themselves loyal. Throw in the money needed to secure those positions.

Edit: Just to add... most males seeking upper positions fail already regardless of gender issues. It's a tough competitive world we live in. I worked in upper management circles and I was extremely lucky to get where I did by 30. I also was passed over for promotions various times in favor of newer people who were simply better than I was or had better networking skills. These female quotas seek to bypass all that. I went for partner in a company but burned out trying to get enough clients/profits to make the high buy in cost.

It's worth considering that many upper positions are contract based and not held by people who worked in the company for long periods. The whole area of headhunting is based around the idea of finding and stealing valuable/experienced professionals for high profile positions. Many companies have a high turnover of upper staff, and these initiatives by feminists will affect these professionals directly.

It's more than young people applying for their first few jobs that will be affected. Everyone, at all levels, is affected.

12-11-2019 5:36pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres no issue with being a home maker but its the societal stigma thats been placed on it or whatever other factors that practically force women to engage in this rigmarole of filling time until they can settle down with children. Think of the wasted educational resources and professional upskilling when it would be easier to just be alright with women saying they dont want a career

I'm perfectly fine with a woman (or man) choosing to stay at home. It's a lifestyle choice. Fact is, I know many people who stay at home while their partner works full time elsewhere. It doesn't mean that they're sitting at home watching TV. They have their own businesses or make income from a variety of sources.

This "stigma" is probably more of an Irish/UK thing. I haven't noticed any similar expressions in Europe or Asia about women deciding to stay as a homemaker. It's generally considered a decent way to live.

The thing is... it's Feminism that said that a woman who wanted to stay at home was weak or wrong. Just as they said that a woman who accepted the support of a man was wrong. Women need to be strong, powerful, etc. :rolleyes:

maccyd13 · 12-11-2019 6:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Gender bias has always been a "thing". It just balanced out because there are many industries where women make up a fair amount of Mid level management. Consider Finance for example. People never talk about the areas where there are many female executives, and finance has always had many female managers from low to mid management. Hiring bias exists in all industries regardless of the industry, and the bias extends to more than just Gender.

Agreed.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with sexism is that it's becoming institutionalized. Feminists fought to take sexism out of institutions, and now, feminism is fighting to put it back in. Just a different target for the sexism, although many women who don't conform to the Feminist way of life are also affected..

Again, Agreed.

Deleted User wrote: »

They already have lost their jobs. Gender quotas for management and committee positions have replaced men with women. That's also happened in the education sector at third level institutions. Same with a wide variety of work schemes to place women in positions that were felt to be lacking in "diversity".

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for "long term", younger workers will become the older workers.
(Although, I have to wonder what age bracket you mean by "young".)

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

Management is the target because it's the most well paid. Feminists won't accept that it's that way because of the hours required or the sheer amount of work involved along with the health problems associated with such lifestyles. Which is why they'll continue to push women into those positions, and demand that women receive greater benefits to compensate them... while decreasing the usefulness of males at the same time.

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. In any case, in most companies, promotion to upper positions is based on seniority and the ability to bring in clients/profits. It will remain an area for older people, simply because it takes that long for younger people to learn the mechanics of the various levels of management or executive lifestyle, along with proving themselves loyal. Throw in the money needed to secure those positions.

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's worth considering that many upper positions are contract based and not held by people who worked in the company for long periods. The whole area of headhunting is based around the idea of finding and stealing valuable/experienced professionals for high profile positions. Many companies have a high turnover of upper staff, and these initiatives by feminists will affect these professionals directly.

I am aware of everything here. But you are saying that upper male staff will be effected by not being head-hunted as much? That just is not as bad as not getting a promotion to middle management or even getting a grad job at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's more than young people applying for their first few jobs that will be affected. Everyone, at all levels, is affected.

I agree with this ofcourse, I still believe those graduating around now will be affected worse than those currently in a position. Nonetheless everyone will be affected, feminists should not use sexist methods to even out the workforce statistics. As time goes on the senior management gender bias would even out naturally.

fattymuatty · 12-11-2019 6:41pm

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).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

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.

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.

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.

ceadaoin. · 12-11-2019 7:26pm

Some of the people saying it's all women's choice to work less after they have kids are the same as those who complain about men being "discriminated against" when it comes to custody issues. Surely if you acknowledge that its women who tend do the bulk of the parenting to the extent that it effects their earning ability, then surely you have to acknowledge that courts considering mothers to more often be the primary carers of children is just a reflection of this, and not discrimination against men?

maccyd13 · 12-11-2019 7:45pm

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).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

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.

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.

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.

I agree this is a factor. But therefore why is maternity leave not changed to be paternal leave and the break up of the 9 months is left at the discretion of the parents. This would eliminate companies assuming women have to take 9 months and men none.

Obviously the mother has much more risk and has the childbirth to recove from. But in most situations the mother could decide her job is very important and return to work after 5 months and then the father take 4 months.

This is assumed that there are no major complications.

I still imagine that most mother's will still take 9 months off but the choice is there at least.

That is only one part of the statistics too, there are other reasons as to why the pay gap is there. This would not be discrimination in my book, discrimination is usually towards something you can't change, but having 9 months maternity due to childbirth is a choice at the end of the day, whichever sex it is.

Reviews and Books Galore · 12-11-2019 7:48pm

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).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

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.

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.

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.

Husbands with important jobs who are giving up the majority of their time to put food on the table, clothes on their back, a high standard of living all the while taking **** from managers, customers and clients.

I always wonder why some people belittle the husbands role in working 40-60 hours per week. Learned behaviour IMO.

jmayo · 12-11-2019 7:52pm

My MD is paid a lot more than me so who do I complain to about being discriminated against ?

Also the consultant I visited earlier this year for dental surgery is on a huge wedge more than me so once again who do I complain to.

Fecking hell I have a lot of complains to make.

Maybe I might get one of these women to help me. :cool:

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 12-11-2019 7:55pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Some of the people saying it's all women's choice to work less after they have kids are the same as those who complain about men being "discriminated against" when it comes to custody issues. Surely if you acknowledge that its women who tend do the bulk of the parenting to the extent that it effects their earning ability, then surely you have to acknowledge that courts considering mothers to more often be the primary carers of children is just a reflection of this, and not discrimination against men?

Discrimination arises when the mother is automatically assumed to be the primary carer, even in cases when she actually isn't.

If the mother is the primary carer, she should get custody. If the father is the primary carer, he should get custody. If they have parented the child in equal measure, they should have joint custody. But that's not the way it usually plays out in court, sadly.

ExoPolitic · 12-11-2019 7:58pm

Women may get the same money as men, when they work the same amount of hours as men in the same jobs... That's called equality, we have that already though..

fattymuatty · 12-11-2019 8:18pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Husbands with important jobs who are giving up the majority of their time to put food on the table, clothes on their back, a high standard of living all the while taking **** from managers, customers and clients.

I always wonder why some people belittle the husbands role in working 40-60 hours per week. Learned behaviour IMO.

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.

tritium · 12-11-2019 8:32pm

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).

They don't talk about when a family decides to have children the woman takes 9 to a year off to recover from a 9 month pregnancy, recover from giving birth(possibly abdominal surgery) and breast feed(in some cases) their child. We will say the family decide to have 2 children and she ends up having to take 18mnths off work, during those 18mnths she is passed over for promotion and her husband who has also had 2 children in the past 3 years but doesn't have anything to recover from receives a promotion. Now he is earning more and the 2 year old gets chicken pox, he is a more senior role and declares he can't take time off work because he will miss x and y. The woman has to take time off because the child can't go to creche and well, someone has to. This repeats. She has to take time off when the child is sick because of husbands Important Job, he gets promoted again because he never misses time, she gets passed over.

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.

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.

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.

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

Secondly, the idea of men just getting on with it rather than also having time to bond with their children during meaningful paternity leave is so anachronistic as to be shameful. Though when you hear of cabinet ministers declaring, sans evidence, that men play golf on paternity leave it doesn’t surprise me that we’re so backward in that respect.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic. Many men simply aren’t given a choice to take a few years out to spend more time with the kids as they grow up. If employers were generally more flexible at all levels with the idea of job sharing etc it might happen but the reality is they’re not. I know I’m my own career given the hours I have to put in (and still juggle the calendar if something unexpected lands, and put in the hours to make that up) that a job share would just become working the extra days for free, while I’ll see colleagues swan off at 5 on the dot

tritium · 12-11-2019 8:35pm

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.

I equally know many women who insist they’re taking time out because they want to spend the important years with the children. The other half is just expected to suck it up and provide regardless of what that requires of them

Which if either of those approaches is more selfish in your view?

fattymuatty · 12-11-2019 8:38pm

tritium wrote: »

I equally know many women who insist they’re taking time out because they want to spend the important years with the children. The other half is just expected to suck it up and provide regardless of what that requires of them

Which if either of those approaches is more selfish in your view?

I think if the man doesn't want to be the sole breadwinner he shouldn't have to be and likewise if the woman doesn't want to take more than 50% of the childcare she shouldn't have to either.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 12-11-2019 8:43pm

These senior jobs are not all the fun people make them out to be. I'm in a management position and it's pretty tough at times. But once you start rising maybe 2 levels above me it starts to get nuts, living out of a suitcase. One person I know in a more senior position was taken aside and questioned by US immigration due to the frequency he was traveling in and out of the US.

ceadaoin. · 12-11-2019 8:46pm

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

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.

12-11-2019 8:50pm

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.

parents choose, essentially

fattymuatty · 12-11-2019 8:53pm

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear god where to start with this. Firstly, it generally doesn’t take 9 months to recover from childbirth- that idea strangely enough only magically started to appear relatively recently. In other countries and in other times this has been managed with a much shorter period with no issues.

Secondly, the idea of men just getting on with it rather than also having time to bond with their children during meaningful paternity leave is so anachronistic as to be shameful. Though when you hear of cabinet ministers declaring, sans evidence, that men play golf on paternity leave it doesn’t surprise me that we’re so backward in that respect.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic. Many men simply aren’t given a choice to take a few years out to spend more time with the kids as they grow up. If employers were generally more flexible at all levels with the idea of job sharing etc it might happen but the reality is they’re not. I know I’m my own career given the hours I have to put in (and still juggle the calendar if something unexpected lands, and put in the hours to make that up) that a job share would just become working the extra days for free, while I’ll see colleagues swan off at 5 on the dot

I absolutely agree that there should be the option to share parental leave, I think that if men spent more time with their children then a lot of the imbalance would be solved.
If both men and women had to take we will say 6 months off work then employers wouldn't be as wary of women of childbearing age, after all we can only have children for a set amount of time, men can keep going til they die. This would only work if men had to spend an equal amount of time off as women.

I also think that if more bonding was done in the early days between fathers and their children then the mother would be seen less as the default care taker and housekeeper. This would be a fantastic thing for women and men.
I am totally on board with fathers becoming more involved in family life, it would be even out a lot of inequalities. Like someone mentioned up thread fathers may actually see their children more in the case of a split and in two parent families I think it would see a closer bond between all family members.

And a yes to flexible working too, it would benefit not just families with children but people without who may have caring duties or other things they would like to pursue.

Thirdly, the idea that men working insane hours and pressure to provide for their family are somehow not pulling their weight is frankly pathetic.

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?

12-11-2019 8:55pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:00pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:00pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:02pm

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

12-11-2019 9:05pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:08pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:08pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:10pm

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 · 12-11-2019 9:10pm

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. · 12-11-2019 9:11pm

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. · 12-11-2019 9:25pm

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

12-11-2019 9:33pm

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 · 12-11-2019 10:21pm

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 · 12-11-2019 10:25pm

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 · 12-11-2019 10:43pm

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 · 12-11-2019 11:32pm

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

12-11-2019 11:33pm

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 · 12-11-2019 11:41pm

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 · 13-11-2019 1:04am

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.

13-11-2019 1:17am

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 · 13-11-2019 1:24am

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

13-11-2019 1:39am

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 · 13-11-2019 2:22am

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 · 13-11-2019 2:25am

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.

13-11-2019 9:59am

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 · 13-11-2019 10:06am

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.

13-11-2019 10:46am

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 · 13-11-2019 11:02am

fattymuatty wrote: »

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

And who's fault is that?

maccyd13 · 13-11-2019 11:17am

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 · 13-11-2019 11:24am

[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.

Women in Ireland working for free from today until 31 December

Comments