Gender equality

[DaN]

 

How is desiring appropriate financial help for a naturally-occuring event that makes it difficult or dangerous to work "special treatment"? You expect woman to keep working 50 hour weeks all the way up to 9 months, continue working after the pregnancy, and then just dump the newborn baby to a stranger to take care of it, maybe? Special treatment my [wagon]. There is nothing special about it, it is something that is necessary in any evolved society.

 

 

 

No I don't expect women to work at all during pregnancy, I certainly wouldn't expect my girlfriend to work.

 

The male applicant is simply the better choice (assuming all other attributes and skills for the job are even). You can complain about nature all you want, but it wont change anything.

[The Dark Lord]

 

How is desiring appropriate financial help for a naturally-occuring event that makes it difficult or dangerous to work "special treatment"? You expect woman to keep working 50 hour weeks all the way up to 9 months, continue working after the pregnancy, and then just dump the newborn baby to a stranger to take care of it, maybe? Special treatment my [wagon]. There is nothing special about it, it is something that is necessary in any evolved society.

 

 

 

No I don't expect women to work at all during pregnancy, I certainly wouldn't expect my girlfriend to work.

 

The male applicant is simply the better choice (assuming all other attributes and skills for the job are even). You can complain about nature all you want, but it wont change anything.

 

 

 

I thought companies had to hire women or they could get sued? Especially if the prospect for hiring is a minority?

[highlanders]

 

How is desiring appropriate financial help for a naturally-occuring event that makes it difficult or dangerous to work "special treatment"? You expect woman to keep working 50 hour weeks all the way up to 9 months, continue working after the pregnancy, and then just dump the newborn baby to a stranger to take care of it, maybe? Special treatment my [wagon]. There is nothing special about it, it is something that is necessary in any evolved society.

 

 

 

No I don't expect women to work at all during pregnancy, I certainly wouldn't expect my girlfriend to work.

 

The male applicant is simply the better choice (assuming all other attributes and skills for the job are even). You can complain about nature all you want, but it wont change anything.

 

I was referring to "It was Women who brought this inequality on themselves by wanting special treatment.", dummy.

[Sly_Wizard]

Gender equality only exists when being argued for by women.

 

 

 

Yes, because those men have been discriminated against so much. Damn, we just have it soooooo hard.

 

 

 

So all men should suffer inequalities because of the past? Hmmm...

[magekillr]

Gender equality only exists when being argued for by women.

 

 

 

Yes, because those men have been discriminated against so much. Damn, we just have it soooooo hard.

 

 

 

So all men should suffer inequalities because of the past? Hmmm...

 

 

 

What inequalities are you suffering from as a man? If anything, it's extremely unequal, favoring you, as a man.

[Zierro]

Gender equality only exists when being argued for by women.

 

 

 

Yes, because those men have been discriminated against so much. Damn, we just have it soooooo hard.

 

 

 

So all men should suffer inequalities because of the past? Hmmm...

 

 

 

Holding doors open for girls is "suffering"? Yeah, it might be a bit unfair but that's a pretty strong word you used for such a minor cause.

[Rebdragon]

Holding doors open for girls is "suffering"? Yeah, it might be a bit unfair but that's a pretty strong word you used for such a minor cause.

 

I like it that way. If it was ambiguous what gender generally does what, everyday life would be so much more complicated :x. It makes right of way a little more instinctive and a little less spontaneous :).

[Zierro]

Holding doors open for girls is "suffering"? Yeah, it might be a bit unfair but that's a pretty strong word you used for such a minor cause.

 

I like it that way. If it's ambiguous everyday life would be so much more complicated :x. It makes right of way a little more instinctive and a little less spontaneous :).

 

 

 

Maybe it just has to do with the fact that women are flattered easier than men, so a guy holding it open has more of a purpose than a girl holding it.

[J a m e s]

On the whole women can slap/hit men but men can't slap/hit women issue... It's hard to say. Women hitting men is an everyday occurence and seen as "righteous" but when men hit women it's violent, outrageous, and even sadistic.

 

 

 

Personally, if a girl gave me a really good slap across the face, I'd find it hard not to lash back. I'm very sensitive to touch and I have an extremely short fuse. =\ It's bad, I know.

[doomy]

We do have equality, but some Women like to push things

 

to far by making stupid demands such a "Maternity leave".

 

 

 

Personally I would avoid employing a woman of child bearing age.

 

Why employ a female staff member who might get pregnant, who you then have to

 

give 14 weeks of paid leave to when you can employ a male who can't get pregnant.

 

 

 

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to employ women. That's largely due to the women's

 

activist groups who like to push things too far.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't women get maternity leave?

 

 

 

Why should I pay for an employee who is giving me no work?

 

 

 

Because it's cheaper than training a brand new employee?

 

Uh yeah but then you're a worker short for 14 weeks! And paying for it.

 

Especially in a small business that could really screw you up.

[Collective]

How is desiring appropriate financial help for a naturally-occuring event that makes it difficult or dangerous to work "special treatment"? You expect woman to keep working 50 hour weeks all the way up to 9 months, continue working after the pregnancy, and then just dump the newborn baby to a stranger to take care of it, maybe? Special treatment my [wagon]. There is nothing special about it, it is something that is necessary in any evolved society.

 

From the employer's perspective pregnancy should be treated as any other physical/mental condition that stops someone working. Currently it is not, and this is the special treatment.

 

 

 

That doesn't rule out any other state benefits for specifically for pregnant women, of course.

[DaN]

How is desiring appropriate financial help for a naturally-occuring event that makes it difficult or dangerous to work "special treatment"? You expect woman to keep working 50 hour weeks all the way up to 9 months, continue working after the pregnancy, and then just dump the newborn baby to a stranger to take care of it, maybe? Special treatment my [wagon]. There is nothing special about it, it is something that is necessary in any evolved society.

 

From the employer's perspective pregnancy should be treated as any other physical/mental condition that stops someone working. Currently it is not, and this is the special treatment.

 

 

 

 

But you then have the same situation.

 

If you have 2 employees both equally qualified for the job but one has a "condition".

 

 

 

 

I thought companies had to hire women or they could get sued? Especially if the prospect for hiring is a minority?

 

There's no such law that I'm aware of, seems somewhat foolish

 

that an employer could get in trouble for not employing someone.

[Collective]

From the employer's perspective pregnancy should be treated as any other physical/mental condition that stops someone working. Currently it is not, and this is the special treatment.

But you then have the same situation.

 

If you have 2 employees both equally qualified for the job but one has a "condition".

 

I wasn't really talking about the original decision to hire someone, just what the situation should be when a female employee does get pregnant.

 

 

 

I thought companies had to hire women or they could get sued? Especially if the prospect for hiring is a minority?

There's no such law that I'm aware of, seems somewhat foolish

 

that an employer could get in trouble for not employing someone.

 

Most, if not all, western countries have such a law. In Australia: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/emplo ... al/sda.htm

 

 

 

Also of interest.

[DaN]

From the employer's perspective pregnancy should be treated as any other physical/mental condition that stops someone working. Currently it is not, and this is the special treatment.

But you then have the same situation.

 

If you have 2 employees both equally qualified for the job but one has a "condition".

 

I wasn't really talking about the original decision to hire someone, just what the situation should be when a female employee does get pregnant.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you there, unavoidable time off should be counted the same regardless of its cause.

[Zonorhc]

Why are you complaining about maternity leave when there's been a proposal floated to allow paternity leave for men?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why are you complaining about maternity leave when there's been a proposal floated to allow paternity leave for men?

 

Male or same-sex partners to mothers are entitled to paternity leave and pay, in the UK at least.

[Collective]

Why are you complaining about maternity leave when there's been a proposal floated to allow paternity leave for men?

 

Male or same-sex partners to mothers are entitled to paternity leave and pay, in the UK at least.

 

(To both of you)

 

 

 

Proposed/existing levels of paternity leave are very different in scale to current maternity leave, to the point where they're incomparable.

 

 

 

As stated previously, I have no problem with pregnant women who are unable to work being properly supported, but this is a societal issue that should be paid for by governments, not businesses. Paternity leave in fact only makes this worse. Provision could be made in my suggested system for reasonable, equal parental leave for both men and women and still reduce the burden on businesses.

 

 

 

Also: Parental leave rights by country

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why are you complaining about maternity leave when there's been a proposal floated to allow paternity leave for men?

 

Male or same-sex partners to mothers are entitled to paternity leave and pay, in the UK at least.

 

(To both of you)

 

 

 

Proposed/existing levels of paternity leave are very different in scale to current maternity leave, to the point where they're incomparable.

 

 

 

As stated previously, I have no problem with pregnant women who are unable to work being properly supported, but this is a societal issue that should be paid for by governments, not businesses. Paternity leave in fact only makes this worse. Provision could be made in my suggested system for equal parental leave for both men and women.

 

I agree so much in that this is a societal issue and the government should pay for it. The problem there though is that (in the UK) there's no more public spends available without increasing borrowing, and given the credit crunch and the expected increase in people claiming JSA as jobs disappear to cut costs, that's unlikely to happen in the current economic climate. Therefore, we'd have to increase taxes somewhere to pay for such a system and no government wants to increase taxes. Again, in the current economic climate, tax increases are unlikely unless they were going to some sort of public works scheme, and not welfare. So even if we did transfer responsibility to the state, it wouldn't take effect for years to come.

 

 

 

As for the second point, I don't agree. Women should be entitled to more time off. Not only because the partner can still physically work in the weeks running up to the birth, but also because cases of PND are higher amongst mothers than the partner. As others have said, if you wanted to strive for equality there, you'd either be forcing women to work until they're ready to drop, or you'd be making companies give unjust time off for the partner. Neither of which is fair at all.

[Collective]

As for the second point, I don't agree. Women should be entitled to more time off. Not only because the partner can still physically work in the weeks running up to the birth, but also because cases of PND are higher amongst mothers than the partner. As others have said, if you wanted to strive for equality there, you'd either be forcing women to work until they're ready to drop, or you'd be making companies give unjust time off for the partner. Neither of which is fair at all.

 

Hm? Actually I'm mostly in agreement with you. In both the later stages of pregnancy and the case of a woman having PND (or other complications) it's entirely unreasonable for a woman to work, hence she should be supported (again, through sick leave and government support). Obviously neither of those commonly applies to the father, so that would be in addition to any shared parental leave.

 

 

 

What you say regarding the strain on the public purse is true, but other countries (including, according to that list, Australia) seem to manage. Also it's worth noting that any increase in taxes on businesses would be offset by the fact they'd no longer be directly paying for maternity leave, which in turn would help reduce the perception that women are a potential burden and as a consequence companies would be less likely to base their hiring/pay decisions on gender.

 

 

 

[/armchair-economist]

[EarthySun]

The gender question has come up quite a bit for me in the last few days/weeks and would like your opinion on it.

 

 

 

In this time and age woman try to get equal rights as men, strive for the same amount of pay and type of jobs as there male counter parts and vice versa in some cases.

 

Also in day to day lifestyles, like treating them the same as the lads.

 

 

 

 

 

My question is how do you feel about that?

 

Like a woman doing some jobs that up till recently was entirely/mainly male dominated and a man doing a woman's job that was until recently entirely/mainly female dominated.

 

 

 

I think that while it's equal to have women at higher positions of power in a business environment, it's not necessarily needed. Women *deserve* the same rights as men do, but men are the more dominant gender as is meant by evolution of nearly every species. Due to women's higher position in business, some have developed more testosterone because of being more dominant, and thus have deeper voices. I agree with equal pay, however, but it's going to be bad if every woman has more dominance than every or most men.

[Estonian dude]

Women and men are too different to be equal. They have developed and are still developed so different, that now it is very-very little things that women could do equally good/bad as men. But there are some exceptions.

[Zierro]

Women and men are too different to be equal. They have developed and are still developed so different, that now it is very-very little things that women could do equally good/bad as men. But there are some exceptions.

 

 

 

Like Quoi Tu said, they can be treated equal without being treated the same. Let's think of an example...

 

 

 

If a woman has a pet dog and cat and loves them both the same, she will treat them both equally but differently. She will feed the cat catfood, the dog dogfood, give the cat cat-litter, take the dog outside for walks, give the cat catnip, and give the dog bones. She gives them both different treatments but they are both getting about the same amount of loving.

[Housepig]

Both genders should be equal, but feminists just take it to far. Actively campainging to get women into positions of power, for example,is stupid, as equality is achieved when both genders have equal oppurtinities to get into power, not when a government is split half and half between men and women.

[Will H]

Women and men are too different to be equal. They have developed and are still developed so different, that now it is very-very little things that women could do equally good/bad as men. But there are some exceptions.

 

 

 

Like Quoi Tu said, they can be treated equal without being treated the same. Let's think of an example...

 

 

 

If a woman has a pet dog and cat and loves them both the same, she will treat them both equally but differently. She will feed the cat catfood, the dog dogfood, give the cat cat-litter, take the dog outside for walks, give the cat catnip, and give the dog bones. She gives them both different treatments but they are both getting about the same amount of loving.

 

I agree with you, women are equal, but they should not be treated the same because they are different in nature from men. But, because you have to treat the genders differently, absolute equality is impossible because the two treatments are like apples and oranges. Could you say that giving the cat catnip and giving the dog a bone are perfectly equal actions? No. Could you say which is the greater/lesser one? No.