-
Posts
-
Actually, just to make it so clear it cant be missed
Lets say there are 6 people in an office half are female just to avoid the kneejerk sex issue and none have kids
ALL of them when initially employed CAN work late, weekends and away from home IF needed so all are equally of value as they offer equal flexibility as an employee
Then ONE woman gets pregnant, for the next 6 months she would be at home doing 0% work for 100% pay the other 5 staff (three male, two female) will each be doing 120% for only 100% of the pay because of a child THEY didnt decide to have, just how exactly is that “equal” to the non breeders?
Then, she will on average be unable to work late, weekends or away in most cases and will have on average a much higher percentage of time off all of which will have to again be shared out between the other 5 people in that office all for no extra pay for them whatsoever
So however its dressed up one persons unilateral choice to have a chold equates to several other people doing more work with no pay increase to reflect that extra work load which isnt under any actual meaning of the word “equal”
Actual equality would reward people based on their worth to the employer, any shortfall due to breeding would then be met by the government and not the employer
The same applies to progression, the higher someone progresses in an organisation and the more specialised their task the less likely any sensible employer would be to hire a woman as you cant really afford someone to be off for nine months 1 year into a 2 year project in a key skills role on that project
Now, lets suppose women didnt choose to pretty much dominate the arena of child rearing, lets suppose career women didnt choose to still fight for the kids even when their ex was the main carer for them, lets suppose women relinquished some of the responsibility for kids to their partners
Then you wouldnt have such a clear division of value to an employer, because then men would be just as likely to present less value over time because they would be just as likely to be restricted by their parental responsibilities (the Mcanns would obviously not be bound by that lol)
But you still have the inconvenience and financial impact of the pregnancy itself which would mean that even in a world of equal parenting opportunity and equal custody women would never ever be totally “equal” in terms of potential worth to an employer as a man unless they are sterile and dont want any kids but even IF that is the case with a woman its considered sexist to ask if its the case so they have to be treated as a potential breeder has to be in order to have ACTUAL fairness in a pay structure
@sweetass wrote:
@drivel wrote:
Why all this talk of Equality – I can’t understand it
Women and Men are totally different – men have dangly bits and women have a sort of badly packed kebab
Women bear children – it should be in their genes to love protect and look after those children especially in their early development – instead a lot of them go straight back to work for selfish reasons
this to me is one of the main reasons the country is in the state it isToo much greed , envy and lack of respect
Plus the fact that now to have a child and be able to see that child through a decent education, and possibly ( if you’re fortunate enough) be able to help that child get on the property ladder you need to work .. I work , not for selfish reasons ..as you so dumbly put it .. but because I want my children to have respect, I don’t want them to spend their lives being ‘Social Security Scroungers’ who think by dropping kids left right and centre, they never have to work for anything they get. Every penny I earn goes into creating a better life for me and my family and although we want for nothing, sometimes it may take me a little bit longer to save and buy nice things. My kids appreciate that I work and although its only my youngest at home, she is good enough to help around the house and make me a cuppa when I get in from work. Being a working single parent means I have had to sacrifice a lot, yet I still have a great relationship with my kids. Sometimes fiinding the balance can be hard, but the knowledge that I do the very best I can for us all, can afford to run a car, a house, go on holiday once a year, ( although abroad is out of the question until next year) Pay for my kids school trips, lunches and most other things they need is worth it all…and if you knew my kids you’d say I’ve done a great job
Right now I’ve got off my soap box I’ll just say one thing ….I know now why you’re named DRIVEL :evil: :twisted:
@sweetass wrote:
Back to the original post … :lol: I like chivalry ..It shows a basic respect for others .. from having a door opened for you . to simple good manners.. it’s something sadly lacking in society today. I’ve always demanded that my children show respect and manners for everyone.. if people choose to disresepct them in return ..then they have me to deal with :shock: :lol: I’ve actually found that the most ignorant people are usually pensioners or muslims.. racist no doubt some will say .. but its a simple observation.. i work in a very busy shop and have suffered ignorance on a daily basis.. my answer is to smile sweetly and then usually drop their change/purchases accidently
Nothing sweeter than watching them scrabble for their stuff as I apologise insincerely :wink: :lol:
Unless you are ONLY teaching the boys to be respectful to women and not the same to any girls you have its NOT chivalry
Chivalry is a one way sexist notion that “men” do unto “women” and not the other way round hence the thread and my thoughts that its outdated and should be retired along with other silly notions like the sanctity of marriage (OOOH, I said titty lol), integrity and social and personal responsibility
In a world where the sexes are allegedly equal chivalry is a nonsensical concept
@ubermik wrote:
Actually, just to make it so clear it cant be missed
Lets say there are 6 people in an office half are female just to avoid the kneejerk sex issue and none have kids
ALL of them when initially employed CAN work late, weekends and away from home IF needed so all are equally of value as they offer equal flexibility as an employee
Then ONE woman gets pregnant, for the next 6 months she would be at home doing 0% work for 100% pay the other 5 staff (three male, two female) will each be doing 120% for only 100% of the pay because of a child THEY didnt decide to have, just how exactly is that “equal” to the non breeders?
Then, she will on average be unable to work late, weekends or away in most cases and will have on average a much higher percentage of time off all of which will have to again be shared out between the other 5 people in that office all for no extra pay for them whatsoever
So however its dressed up one persons unilateral choice to have a chold equates to several other people doing more work with no pay increase to reflect that extra work load which isnt under any actual meaning of the word “equal”
Actual equality would reward people based on their worth to the employer, any shortfall due to breeding would then be met by the government and not the employer
The same applies to progression, the higher someone progresses in an organisation and the more specialised their task the less likely any sensible employer would be to hire a woman as you cant really afford someone to be off for nine months 1 year into a 2 year project in a key skills role on that project
Now, lets suppose women didnt choose to pretty much dominate the arena of child rearing, lets suppose career women didnt choose to still fight for the kids even when their ex was the main carer for them, lets suppose women relinquished some of the responsibility for kids to their partners
Then you wouldnt have such a clear division of value to an employer, because then men would be just as likely to present less value over time because they would be just as likely to be restricted by their parental responsibilities (the Mcanns would obviously not be bound by that lol)
But you still have the inconvenience and financial impact of the pregnancy itself which would mean that even in a world of equal parenting opportunity and equal custody women would never ever be totally “equal” in terms of potential worth to an employer as a man unless they are sterile and dont want any kids but even IF that is the case with a woman its considered sexist to ask if its the case so they have to be treated as a potential breeder has to be in order to have ACTUAL fairness in a pay structure
i actually agree with a lot of that but how many men do you know who have been asked in an interview if they ever plan to get married and have children ?
the question should be asked to both male and female, and the men should take on 50 50 care of the children and if they cant afford that, the lesser wage earne needs a pay rise… simple womens logic… :lol:@waspish wrote:
i actually agree with a lot of that but how many men do you know who have been asked in an interview if they ever plan to get married and have children ?
the question should be asked to both male and female, and the men should take on 50 50 care of the children and if they cant afford that, the lesser wage earne needs a pay rise… simple womens logic… :lol:Well the interesting thing you will find there waspish is that the people that will be screaming objections to that the loudest will be the women, and feminist organisations will be lobbying so hard their strap ons will fall off
Women are so used to having near total domination via the courts where child access and custody is concerned the last thing they would majoratively want is equality, because that removes leverage, power, financial support and moves them one step closer to the best parent having the children rather than just the female one which would see many women having to fight for access rights rather than just sitting back being obstructive with regards their ex’s access to their kids
The custody and care issue is nowhere near as black and white as its painted, but the last thing women want people to realise is that not only are men JUST as capable of raising kids but that in many relationships they will be the best person to do it which is something that womankind wont want to have a fair and objective viewing off in the law courts
So yeah, in principle its a nice idea but far more women would have to then get off their butts and think about education and building actual careers than do currently and I think you will find that if it were an imminent possible reality rather than an unlikelyhood far far more women would oppose 50/50 care than would want it and until women ARE prepared to loosen their grip on children then they wont in any true sense of the word be “equals” in the workplace
@sweetass wrote:
@ubermik wrote:
@sweetass wrote:
Back to the original post … :lol: I like chivalry ..It shows a basic respect for others .. from having a door opened for you . to simple good manners.. it’s something sadly lacking in society today. I’ve always demanded that my children show respect and manners for everyone.. if people choose to disresepct them in return ..then they have me to deal with :shock: :lol: I’ve actually found that the most ignorant people are usually pensioners or muslims.. racist no doubt some will say .. but its a simple observation.. i work in a very busy shop and have suffered ignorance on a daily basis.. my answer is to smile sweetly and then usually drop their change/purchases accidently
Nothing sweeter than watching them scrabble for their stuff as I apologise insincerely :wink: :lol:
Unless you are ONLY teaching the boys to be respectful to women and not the same to any girls you have its NOT chivalry
Chivalry is a one way sexist notion that “men” do unto “women” and not the other way round hence the thread and my thoughts that its outdated and should be retired along with other silly notions like the sanctity of marriage (OOOH, I said titty lol), integrity and social and personal responsibility
In a world where the sexes are allegedly equal chivalry is a nonsensical concept
In an ideal world .. I love a chivalrous man … who of the female persuasion doesnt like the thought of being treated with respect and decency …?? Maybe if those damn greedy working parents gave up their jobs, they’d have time to teach their sons how exactly you’re meant to treat a woman and we wouldn’t have half the social problems we do have Hey Drivel :?: :roll:
Actually, you will find that most of those parents are single parents and nearly all of them ARE women
Infact even iin a proper family enviroment most of the parenting is STILL done by women as the men have always majoratively worked
But a few points there
1) Even when the men worked and women didnt kids didnt turn out as they do now and we didnt have the same level of social problems
2) as women do and always have done most of the parenting they ARE therefore mostly to blame, and when its a single parent they are WHOLLY to blame for how thieir kids turn out
3) as men have always worked just exactly which gender of greedy RECENTLY working parents did you mean? As it seems gender is quite conveniently left out of comments like that lol, “quel surpris”
4) If, as it would seem women struggle to teach boys HOW to be male, then maybe the post modern feminist ideas of how healthy a modern single mother family is should be rethought seeing as many other sources seem to indicate that single parented kids are far more likely to be poor performers at school and in work, are far more likely to be in trouble with the police and are far more like to abuse drugs and alcohol. Maybe an actual father being around contributed more than just a paypacket after all
5) and as for “who of the female persuasion doesnt like the thought of being treated with respect and decency”, try asking men the same question, and you will get the exact same amount of the exact same replies, so a better question is why do women seem to labour under the delusion that they for some obscure reason should be treated any better than they in turn treat men?
I notice more and more of your posts always seem to boil down to your view that men are treated more unfairly by courts than women.
You may be surprised to hear that more and more the courts are now dealing with joint residence cases because more and more women are working mums, so the court takes all this into consideration.
You simply cannot keep saying women are always getting the fairer deal, the court will make the decision on WHAT IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS. If both parents deem themselves to be the primary carer there will be lengthy hearings and reports and the court will decide after hearing all the evidence.
There are always two sides to every story, lets not forget that.
And it may be worth mentioning that it is not always the men who get the bum deal.
Having met some of the members of Father’s for Justice I can see why some of their ex’s are in hiding ALONG with their children!
@sharongooner wrote:
I notice more and more of your posts always seem to boil down to your view that men are treated more unfairly by courts than women.
You may be surprised to hear that more and more the courts are now dealing with joint residence cases because more and more women are working mums, so the court takes all this into consideration.
You simply cannot keep saying women are always getting the fairer deal, the court will make the decision on WHAT IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS. If both parents deem themselves to be the primary carer there will be lengthy hearings and reports and the court will decide after hearing all the evidence.
There are always two sides to every story, lets not forget that.
And it may be worth mentioning that it is not always the men who get the bum deal.
Having met some of the members of Father’s for Justice I can see why some of their ex’s are in hiding ALONG with their children!
What is in a childs best interest isnt exactly arrived at fairly in a slanted system tho is it?
For one we are about the ONLY civilised country that doesnt recognise PAS (parental alienation syndrome) even tho its a very easy one to spot
So often even kids that say they DONT want to see the non custodial parent DO want to, but because of the selfish shows of emotion and vehement outbursts from the resident one will say they dont to end the upset that they themselves feel they are the cause of
As a society we collectively (and I include myself in that to an extent) trivialise men and their role with kids, they have been systematically demonised via the media to the point where it almost seems “odd” for a man to have custody of his own kids
Infact that oh so fair court system you mention is only recently starting TO be more “fair” and a large part of that is because of fathers for justice to the point that even when a man is the main carer and the woman is the breadiwinner he is still very likely to only end up with access rights to see them rather than custody
There is an undeniable social undertone that kids are “better off” with mothers, one that is reinforced albeit innacurately by droves of single parent women who have never had a partner they knew long enough to get the second name of and until both genders are seen without that gender bias nothing will be anything even approaching equal SG
But its just so prominent and common place a tainting that it is almost invisible until pointed out and doesnt just limit itself to issues appertaining to kids
Try looking at the writings of Anna Carline, a law professor at a nothern university and her deconstructions of gender bias within the law and the social psychosis behind them and you will see just how deep the rabbit warren goes
We ARE stuck with our preconceptions of both genders, and even when intrinsic evidence disproves the validity of those stereotypes they are still almost impossible to ammend or lose
Thank you fatass for your personally slanted reply
I’m sure your kids would learn a lot more about life and respect if YOU were there to show them
Forget about the possession culture – be with your family as much as you can
They soon leave you !!
@drivel wrote:
Thank you fatass for your personally slanted reply
I’m sure your kids would learn a lot more about life and respect if YOU were there to show them
Forget about the possession culture – be with your family as much as you can
They soon leave you !!
The 60’s are over, hippies should be made extinct
At which point, and usually by the exact same people thos parents IF they did that would then be labelled scrounging good for nothing baby factories so they cant really win can they?
Life is rarely about extremes, “working” is niether good or bad, that depends on how many hours someone works, how welll it fits in AROUND their kids rather than the other way round and how much energy it leaves them for being a parent when not at work
Similarly many stay at home parents are just useless parents, and are therefore a bad influence and THEIR kids will turn out better the LESS time they spend around them
But as with most social issues balance is best, there are benefits to a parent working in terms of self respect, social diversity, life experience and example setting to name just a few. All of which can be totally wiped out tho if a career takes too much time and energy from the person and eats into their parenting
Similarly there are downsides to having TOO much time with kids for different people, some of which are complacency, being too easy going, making the kid smoothered and spoilt which they then expect to ALWAYS be the case, lack of lfe experience and diversity and many others
So a balance of the two where niether is approaching a negative excess is, I reckon the best balance for parent AND child and NOT one or the other
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!