Feminism - Your thoughts on it.

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm not.

BUt where is the outcry over, for example Dharfur?

This is killing, rape, torture and mutilation on a huge scale. Feminists are not doing a very good job of getting this issue brought into the limelight.

Not that anyone is. The UN, in particular, have had me jumping up and down with rage whil watching them procrastinate and sending in AU troops (human rights disaster that they are themselves)But, I would expect true feminists to be marching in the streets about the sheer horrors being perpetuated there.

I would expect true feminists to be hitting us with never-ending pressure regarding the Africa situation. I would expect true feminism to gibe the wolf whistling and the private sector pay gaps much less time than these women who are living ina hell. Sadly, it seems that often the reverse is true.

I play my part but as you can see even the issues that effect women in this country when raised by a feminist here means the poster is abused and ridiculed.

Most people here are to busy labeling me a feminazi, man hating, hairy, ugly, bull dyke or saying such things don't belong on this site or feminism is outdated then to think and address the issues.

There are some really good feminist sites out there if you want to know what is going on but you have to go to them.

http://feministing.com/
http://thecurvature.com/

We don't have something like that here yet...

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

This is what I found:

http://www.unesco.org/most/asia1.htm

"The ILO statistics show that only 1 percent of the world's assets are in the name of women".

And then the ILO website is here:

www.ilo.org


(And another interesting talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16)

Hmmm.....that is not to say that 99% of the worlds assests are in the name of men. Look high enough and the majority of assests are in the name of faceless/sexless corporations, governments and religious groups.

Suitably worrying.

Mikel

taconnol wrote: »

Quote: "Although women do two third's of the world's labour, they own less than 1% of the world's assets"

I see you've moved on to another report, if you keep looking you might find something more than a headline which backs up your belief.
That statistic depends how you define 'labour'

The gender gap is alive and well. Even straight out of college men are earning more - try and explain that away.

Done. Anything to add?
Incidentally those quotes are from the summary from the start of the report. I doubt you'll read anything which doesn't back you up though

BUt where is the outcry over, for example Dharfur?

Good question, or 'honour killings'
Why aren't feminists up in arms about the way women are treated in some communities in the UK, or in the Arab world?
It makes me more cynical about their agenda

Mikel

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://feministing.com/

There's a mention on there of lawrence Summers, an issue very close to my heart. It's probably unfair to take comments made on a site as being representative, but...

http://feministing.com/archives/008628.html#comments

To try to make an ironic point about something which is asserted to be true, and accuse men of being lacking at logic, only for someone to say...

What are we telling our daughters when we tell them they're not as good at math as the boys? Obviously that they belong to a flawed gender, and that they themselves are flawed just because they are girls

FFS, does anyone know what a non sequitur is anymore? Using illogical arguments while accusing someone of illogicality.
Now that IS ironic!!
I hope 'feminists' don't all think like that, never entertain the thought that there are inherent differences. Until of course it's perceived to be advantageous.

Mikel

http://thecurvature.com/2008/02/19/reasons-to-take-the-bus/#more-586

ok I'm deliberately nit picking now, but

Up to 35 women may have been drugged and raped by a London taxi driver, police said on Monday.

Thirty women have come forward after a man was arrested last Friday in southeast London on suspicion of rape.

Knowing full well that the Mirror is about as far from a reputable news source as you can get (don’t worry, the facts are the same in every story), I chose to use their article particularly because of the confounding nature of the first sentence. “Up to 35 women.” Well, 35 women in total have come forward. And instead of reaching what I would deem to be the logical conclusion — that if 35 have already come forward, just think of how many others there are — the Mirror has apparently determined that when 35 women come forward with rape allegations, that’s the definitive total, and at least a few have to be liars.

It’s funny, because it seems to be a theme recently. No, not just calling rape victims liars, since that’s pretty much a theme of living in the world as a woman. I’m talking about women being raped in cabs — and then having it implied that they are liars or to blame for the assaults.

That wasn't implied.
And some women do lie about it

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

I see you've moved on to another report, if you keep looking you might find something more than a headline which backs up your belief.
That statistic depends how you define 'labour'

Of course it depends how you define labour. Is there something more solid you want to say about that?

Mikel wrote: »

Done. Anything to add?
Incidentally those quotes are from the summary from the start of the report. I doubt you'll read anything which doesn't back you up though

Interesting report - not one I had come across. It's pretty clear why there is no gender pay gap in the public sector - they bend over backwards to obey all legislation (health & safety, bullying etc) - the place is regulated to the hilt.

It is even clearer why more women have more reasons to join the public sector - you have much better maternity leave and child-care benefits in the public sector. This would include the right to take up to 5 years leave of absence and the right to work part-time and flexi-time. It's certainly something that I would look at seriously when considering my career path.

While I am aware that all of these things are also attractive to men, they can be vital to whether a women can continue on in her career.

Moreover, there is more scope for discrimination (of all types) in the private sector for the simple fact that it is less regulated. When I was working, I went into a room & my boss looked at me, hummed and hawed and decided how much of a raise & bonus I was getting. My mum works in the public sector & her pay increases are all according to points, time spent, etc - all strictly laid out & transparent.

Just on your point Zulu - I remember reading a study about women asking for raises. The study found that women were actually penalised (consciously or sub-consciously) for coming across as confident and demanding a raise. Hmm I'll try to find it.

Mikel wrote: »

Good question, or 'honour killings'
Why aren't feminists up in arms about the way women are treated in some communities in the UK, or in the Arab world?
It makes me more cynical about their agenda

You make feminists sound like some sort of stonemason society, like neocons or something, meeting in the middle of the night to plot world domination. I don't meet with other feminists-in fact I'd say there are more feminists in here than in my circle of friends. I don't go around planning or scheming or making up 'agenda's.

Actually the only feministy book I have is called 'I'm not a feminist but...'

Not everything is hunky-dory in Ireland and all the gender issues are somewhere 'out there'? A friend of mine was at a recent talk about problems of female genital mutilation in Ireland - yes Ireland - not sub-Sarahan Africa. Albeit that this particular issue has been imported from abroad.

Mikel

Of course it depends how you define labour. Is there something more solid you want to say about that?

I'll spell it out. You posted a statistic that women do two thirds of the world's labour. This implies that women do the majority of work in the world
What is included in 'labour'? The meaningfulness of the term depends on what is included. Does it include child rearing or homemaking?
Considering the number of housewives in the world it's a counter intuitive statistic, which is probably the point of it.

Graduates in the public sector earn significantly more per hour (and per week) than those in the private sector. Therefore, the over-representation of female graduates in the public sector counteracts their disadvantage in the private sector, leading to equality in the economy-wide hourly wage.

According to this the only pay gap is between the public and private sectors.
Before taking into account job security, flexibility and pension provisions.
As women are more represented in the public sector isn't this an inequity which should be rectified?

You make feminists sound like some sort of stonemason society, like neocons or something, meeting in the middle of the night to plot world domination. I don't meet with other feminists-in fact I'd say there are more feminists in here than in my circle of friends. I don't go around planning or scheming or making up 'agenda's.

Where do you get that from? Do you know what a straw man argument is?
The fact is there are organisations with a 'feminist' agenda if that is the right word. Or call it women's rights or equality or something else if you like.
And they seem to pick and choose which issues are important in a very strange way.
Female circumcision is a good example of this. Is it happening in ireland?
If so why isn't there uproar? They're too busy complaining about non existent 'pay gaps' unfortunately.
I wonder when women's aid are planning that particular protest

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

I'll spell it out. You posted a statistic that women do two thirds of the world's labour. This implies that women do the majority of work in the world
What is included in 'labour'? The meaningfulness of the term depends on what is included. Does it include child rearing or homemaking?
Considering the number of housewives in the world it's a counter intuitive statistic, which is probably the point of it.

I would consider housework and childrearing as work - would you not?

Mikel wrote: »

According to this the only pay gap is between the public and private sectors.
Before taking into account job security, flexibility and pension provisions.
As women are more represented in the public sector isn't this an inequity which should be rectified?

No, according to the report there is a pay gap in the private sector - or am I reading it wrong? Why would we have to rectify a larger proportion of women in the public sector? I wouldn't have a problem with it the other way around.

Mikel wrote: »

Where do you get that from? Do you know what a straw man argument is?
The fact is there are organisations with a 'feminist' agenda if that is the right word. Or call it women's rights or equality or something else if you like.
And they seem to pick and choose which issues are important in a very strange way.
Female circumcision is a good example of this. Is it happening in ireland?
If so why isn't there uproar? They're too busy complaining about non existent 'pay gaps' unfortunately.
I wonder when women's aid are planning that particular protest

Your post is just a little bit condescending Mikel. So feminist organisations have a monopoly on feminism and therefore the rest of us have to be tarred with the same brush? I'm not connected with any of these organisations in any way. I know nothing about them and so can't comment on them in any way. Perhaps you do know more about them?

You could ask the same thing about all the inequalities that are happening in Ireland - the homeless, racism, etc I don't really see that on the news every day. I just hear endless cases of rape, how bad the health service is & Bertie's finances.

Also, the more correct phrase is 'female genital mutilation', not 'female circumcision' - pedantic, perhaps but I think the distinction is important.

Midna

It annoys me.

Why is it my boss can have a laugh with the lads but avoids all the girls except for professional interaction or "fatherly advice"?

It is because feminism ruined it for the rest of us. You don't try and be equal be wanting to be treated differently.

Mikel

I would consider housework and childrearing as work - would you not?

Yes I would, but I don't think it has a place in labour statistics. I do my own housework, should that be included also?

No, according to the report there is a pay gap in the private sector - or am I reading it wrong? Why would we have to rectify a larger proportion of women in the public sector? I wouldn't have a problem with it the other way around.

There is an 8.2% disparity ON AVERAGE across the spectrum of all occupations in the private sector

Graduates in the public sector earn significantly more per hour (and per week) than those in the private sector

and there are more women in the public sector

these two effects roughly cancel out

So on average, men occupy higher paid occupations in the private sector, and there are more women in the relatively better paid public sector.
But only one of these is inequitable?

Your post is just a little bit condescending Mikel. So feminist organisations have a monopoly on feminism and therefore the rest of us have to be tarred with the same brush? I'm not connected with any of these organisations in any way.

How am I being condescending I'm not tarring anyone with any brush. My original contention was that they have an agenda, and they select the 'feminist' issues which are aligned with that the exclusion of all else. Even if they are horrific.

Call it what you want to call it, I think WA and co are relatively quiet about it because they don't want to be accused of racism.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Just on your point Zulu - I remember reading a study about women asking for raises. The study found that women were actually penalised (consciously or sub-consciously) for coming across as confident and demanding a raise. Hmm I'll try to find it.

Please do, I'd be very interested in reading it.
Naturally, I can't comment on the "sub-conscious", and when I hear people talking about it, it sets off alarm bells. How can that be proved?

Consciously: from my own part working in the private sector and having sat on the other side of the desk - if I've two (equal) candidates for promotion, I'll give the job to the person who'll fight their corner. Moving up the chain requires someone who can push and promote their own ideas. There is little room for those who avoid conflict. It's a competition. You don't win competitions if you don't compete. I learned this early on thankfully.

As for being penalised? I'll wait until I read the report, but I'll be honest it sounds a bit far fetched. How could they be penalised? Leave with a pay cut? A de-motion? Or are you suggesting that it'll negatively effect their career path? Personally I reward confidence, and that comes from being good at your job. Mind you, I would take a very negative view on someone demanding a rise just because of their sex/religion/race/some other perceived (dis)advantage.

To me, the private sector is about money not sex. Those who can make it (for the company) tend to rise quickly, those who can't don't.

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

It is even clearer why more women have more reasons to join the public sector - you have much better maternity leave and child-care benefits in the public sector. This would include the right to take up to 5 years leave of absence and the right to work part-time and flexi-time. It's certainly something that I would look at seriously when considering my career path.

While I am aware that all of these things are also attractive to men, they can be vital to whether a women can continue on in her career.

Would this not support the point that women are intentionally choosing more flexible but lower paying jobs and as such the pay gap is based off of biased data? Yes the inconsistancy in the private sector needs looking at, but it needs to be made clear that the pay gap is a private sector issue, not an all encompassing one as the current useage of the term tends to be.

taconnol wrote: »

Not everything is hunky-dory in Ireland and all the gender issues are somewhere 'out there'? A friend of mine was at a recent talk about problems of female genital mutilation in Ireland - yes Ireland - not sub-Sarahan Africa. Albeit that this particular issue has been imported from abroad.

:eek:Please tell me the people involved have been locked up for GBH!?? I'm peeved enough that they do that anywhere but for them to start doing it here!!:mad:

taconnol wrote: »

Also, the more correct phrase is 'female genital mutilation', not 'female circumcision' - pedantic, perhaps but I think the distinction is important.

"Mutilation" seems a lot more apt from what I understand of the details, stuff like this is not the kind of thing where we should come up with a PC term for it just so we can back away from the truth of what it is.

Midna wrote: »

It annoys me.

Why is it my boss can have a laugh with the lads but avoids all the girls except for professional interaction or "fatherly advice"?

It is because feminism ruined it for the rest of us. You don't try and be equal be wanting to be treated differently.

Fair point, certainly in my workplace you get the lads hanging with the lads and the ladies hanging with the ladies you overhear the same kind of crude jokes and innuendos from both but they go silent when they realise one of the opposite gender is in earshot as they're so worried about the whole harrassment and bullying crap they might get should that person complain. 'Tis daft!

Macha

Ah ha! found it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/gender.pay

read down til the end to get the full picture

farohar wrote: »

Would this not support the point that women are intentionally choosing more flexible but lower paying jobs and as such the pay gap is based off of biased data? Yes the inconsistancy in the private sector needs looking at, but it needs to be made clear that the pay gap is a private sector issue, not an all encompassing one as the current useage of the term tends to be.

Well no (to the first part) because the better paid jobs in the public sector, ironically, are the better paid ones as well. However I guess they don't have the same potential for earnings that the private sector does (although Bertie's doing his damndest to rectify that). But yes, I accept your and Mikel's point that there is no gender pay gap in the public sector, only the private sector.

Also, just on women chosing more flexible, lower paid jobs: again, I'd say most of them do choose but I don't know how many male partners would feel about giving up work & looking after the kids while I continue working...perhaps this generation is different - my dad wouldn't even have considered it.

farohar wrote: »

:eek:Please tell me the people involved have been locked up for GBH!?? I'm peeved enough that they do that anywhere but for them to start doing it here!!:mad:

I know - we're doing great here in Ireland & then abuse gets 'imported'! At least we haven't seen any honour killings (as far as I know), as has been the case in the UK. Perhaps its just a matter of time?

farohar wrote: »

Fair point, certainly in my workplace you get the lads hanging with the lads and the ladies hanging with the ladies you overhear the same kind of crude jokes and innuendos from both but they go silent when they realise one of the opposite gender is in earshot as they're so worried about the whole harrassment and bullying crap they might get should that person complain. 'Tis daft!

Yeah, I don't want Ireland going down the American route where you're afraid to speak to other people int he office. My male friends know I'm a feminist & they just rip the piss

Mikel - of course those should be included in the labour statistics. So you do 100% of your own labour - good for you. Throw a kid into the equation and what would happen? You'd have to either pay someone or you or your partner would have to do the 'work'. Housework, etc saves the economy billions every year by going unpaid. I'm not saying it should be paid when it's being done by household members for their own good but at least recognise it as work!

Indeed, if this work did not happen, our birth-rate would go right down. Our entire economy is dependent on this work being unpaid.

Zulu

Very interesting indeed. Seems to completely back up my assertion that women just don't fight for the pay rise.

It's very interesting that it concludes: ""the social risks of negotiating are higher for women than for men" but would you not agree that the details seems to loose focus for the latter point? It talks a lot of perception, but doesn't provide the figures as it did in the first point. (Just a little disappointing).

Interesting read though.

So I guess then this would suggest that feminism striving for equally pay in the work place is a bit of a futile effort; that the focus should be on changing how men & women perceive a woman asking for something.

Dragan

Okay, so what i took from the study was that women will be less inclined to get a pay rise even should they ask regardless of the sex of the employer?

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Very interesting indeed. Seems to completely back up my assertion that women just don't fight for the pay rise.

It's very interesting that it concludes: ""the social risks of negotiating are higher for women than for men" but would you not agree that the details seems to loose focus for the latter point? It talks a lot of perception, but doesn't provide the figures as it did in the first point. (Just a little disappointing).

Interesting read though.

So I guess then this would suggest that feminism striving for equally pay in the work place is a bit of a futile effort; that the focus should be on changing how men & women perceive a woman asking for something.

Um yes but it's explaining why women don't fight for pay rises:

""This isn't about fixing the women," Bowles said. "It isn't about telling women, 'You need self-confidence or training.' They are responding to incentives within the social environment.""

Dragan - as I read it it's saying that men penalise women more than other men for negotiating, but that women penalise both sexes equally.

"Men tended to rule against women who negotiated but were less likely to penalise men; women tended to penalise both men and women who negotiated, and preferred applicants who did not ask for more."

Dragan

Cheers! I figured i had missed a line somewhere a long the way!

Personally i don't get it myself. I work in a very female orientated company. 80% of my Team are female ( and we an important Team and hard to get in to ), my boss is female, my bosses boss, the department director. In fact a higher percentage of the directors and management in our company are female.

I see it from the other side. I see men who are more suitable for roles and projects being passed over in favour of female friends all the time. I have what would be considered sexist and degrading comments made to me every day but apparently they don't count as i am a dude and should be able to deal with it.

Now, i don't give a ****, it's just a job to me, i just find it ironic that if i was a woman in the company i currently work for i would stand a much better chance of getting ahead and i would be able to walk past the other people on my floor and not have one of the girls tell me, in a crowded office to "move my fine ass along".

It's all swings and roundabouts......it doesn't seem people want to make any better as far as i can see.....just get back at the people who they see as having kept them down....but by the time they are in a position the people they are mistreating had **** all to do with it.

Just my observation from the rotten heart of a massive multinational.

panda100

Baudelaire wrote: »

Feminism has bad name at times mainly because it's misunderstood, the an opinion that feminists are man haters (and there is one small section that would fit that discription) has unfortunatly become the overall opinion but the fact is that there is more than one type of feminist, some are still living in the dark ages lots arent:

Liberal feminist - The majority would fall here and all they believe is that men and women are equal and should have the same rights and that's fair enough, they're not burning bras or protesting about silly things, all they want to do is further equality and there's nothing wrong with that in this day and age.

Radical feminist - These are the ones that give feminists a bad name because within this group is a minority of lesbian separatists that would be the ones that put across the idea that all hetrosexual sex acts are acts of voilence against women. Most feminists wouldn't subscribe to that idea anymore but will still recognise all the important work these put in in the early days like setting up rape crisis centres, battered women's shelters and brought to the fore thinks like the possibilty that there can be such a thing as rape in marriage. They do the right things but at times can be to heavy handed in their methods.

Socialist feminist - Sort of different to the other two, their motto would be classed as all men/women are equal and recognise that it's not only men that oppress, women can oppress men and women too.

Postmodern Feminist - These see things a bit differently as in not from the point of view of men v women but more masculinty and feminity and how our patriarchal society can also oppress men or at least men that don't fit into the "Ideal man" opinion. Gender is seen as something that is performed like (sorry lads, I don't mean anything bad here it's just an example) some of the "real man" posts on GBRH or girls liking pink fluffy things as a performance of ones gender.

Your defintion of socialist feminists is all wrong. Marxist feminist do not believe that men oppress women and women oppress men like some sort of vicious circle. We see that the roots of gender inequality stem from the organisation of society i.e the ruthless drive for profits in a capitalist society. We believe that the only way women will ever be liberated is by organising society so that ALL people ,men and women are placed before profits i.e in a socialist society. Gender oppression is just another form of class oppression like racism which allows allows the ruling class to easily divide and rule the working class.

Macha

And more depressing articles on women and work - in case anyone needs any...

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2259146,00.html

Feminism is about not having to read these sort of articles.

tallaght01

I just read the article.

Sadly, I don't find anything in there to be particularly surprising.

I've often thought about this situation. And, to be honest, I can see where Alan Sugar is coming from (quoted in the article).

Don't get me wrong. I think it's wrong. But I can see his point. I especially see the argument from the point of view of someone who owns a small business.

I'm faced with this issue, to an extent, all the time in work. I work in a paediatric hospital, and have done for several years. A LOT of my colleagues are women, and most of my direct colleagues are in their 20s and 30s. So, there's a LOT of maternity leave.

It's not uncommon for these women to abuse the system. Many wait until they get a coveted "specialist registrar" job ( a 5 year contract, at the end of which you are a consultant) to have babies. Once they're in a 5 year contract, they can take as much mat leave as they like, and build up their 5 years as a registrar over however many years they want. Usually docs are just hired on 6monthly/yearly contracts, so at the end of that time, they are no longer entitled to mat benefits.

As soon as they take time off work, it screws the rest of us over. I've often done unimaginable (and illegal!)hours because we've got 3 or 4 women off on maternity leave, and someone just has to cover their shifts (3 docs being off work can be 200+ hours a week to cover, and it's not that easy to just hire docs. Most of them have jobs already, so the posts are usually left unfilled).

At the other end of the spectrum is the pressure put on women to keep working late into their pregnancy for these very reasons. I know a woman who was running around like a blue arsed fly as a registrar in a wildly busy neonatal intensive care right up until she was 38 weeks pregnant. Sadly, I know another who felt the pressure to keep working, and had a miscarriage as a result.

I use paediatrics as an example, as it's what I know, and it's what I've experienced. But I presume most businesses are the same. A company with 4 staff going through some hard times hires a woman. She gets pregnant a year later. they've got to pay her mat pay, and hire a new person in her place. Presumably this kind of increased wage bill (probably a 20% rise or so)places enormous financial burdens on any smallbusiness.

So, what I'm (perhaps controversially saying) is that I don't think all businesses who try and avoid hiring women that are likely to become pregnant are the embodiment of evil.

So, what's the solution? Less entitlements for pregnant women? Difficult to justify, as the act of bringing a person into this world is one of the most important things a person can do. It's hard to justify making pregnant women carry the financial can for struggling business.

Perhaps mat pay could be subsidised by the govt? Forgive me if something like this is already in place. I've been working abroad for a number of years, so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Irish employment law.

But why shouldn't the taxpayer share some of the bill for pregnant women? Giving birth is part of the population cycle, which benefits us all.

Anyone else got any other ideas? Because I don't think just giving out about it will change anything. And I think more vigorous reinforcement of the stiff penalties that exist will just mean maternity profiling is conducted in a more clandestine way.

Nevyn

The maternity benefit payment is advilible for women who have enough pris contributions and usually the employer will make up the difference in salary ( some don't), but the employer had to manage a person down or pay the salery of the temp to fill the position.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/maternity_benefit

How the amount of Maternity Benefit is calculated

If you are employed, your weekly rate of Maternity Benefit is calculated by dividing your gross income in the relevant tax year by the number of weeks you actually worked in that year. Eighty percent (80%) of this amount is payable weekly, subject to a minimum payment and a maximum payment. (The Relevant Tax Year is the second last complete income tax year before the year in which your maternity leave starts).

If you are self-employed, your weekly rate of Maternity Benefit is calculated by dividing your gross income in the relevant tax year by 52 weeks - 80% of this amount is payable weekly, subject to a minimum payment and a maximum payment.

Rates of payment from January 2008:

Maternity Benefit Weekly rate
Maximum payment €280
Minimum payment €221.80

tallaght01

Thaedydal wrote: »

The maternity benefit payment is advilible for women who have enough pris contributions and usually the employer will make up the difference in salary ( some don't), but the employer had to manage a person down or pay the salery of the temp to fill the position.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/maternity_benefit

so the most the govt will pay you is 280euro a week? Thats about 14k per annum. That leaves a big shortfall for the employer to fill, in high wage Ireland.

Mikel

Difficult one, and it might explain partly why you see fewer women as you move up in an organisation. Why have a long expensive recruiting process for someone very senior only for them to take off in a year for mat leave. Yes maybe it's unfair, but understanable where they are coming from.
If a woman was elected Taoiseach for example, could the situation arise.

I suppose simplistically the cost has to be borne somewhere, maybe the taxpayer should subsidise maternity leave. Personally I don't think so.

On the subject of discrimination, if a woman is entitled to a certain amount of time off, and from what i've read, some believe she should not be penalised in terms of salary or advancement for doing so, isn't that discriminatory against the women who choose to advance their career and sacrifice having children?

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

I suppose simplistically the cost has to be borne somewhere, maybe the taxpayer should subsidise maternity leave. Personally I don't think so.

Why shouldn't the taxpayer subsidise maternity leave? Our economy benefits enormously from all the work that goes on in the home unpaid. I saw an article recently on BBC quoting a study that estimated the average housewife (hate that word) would earn £30,000 on average if she were paid for the work she did.

As a 25yr old, the discrimination shown against women of child-bearing age in that article worries me a lot...

Having a low birth rate, ie below the replacement rate of 2.1 is not good for the economy. Lately, our birthrate (1.8, I think) has been supplemented by immigration but is that a trend we want to continue at the same levels? Japan, Germany & other countries are facing huge problems in the very near future with ageing populations. We are going to face the same problems in about 20 years.

So I think there are 2 reasons for the government to subsidise maternity leave

1) reduce discrimination against women in the work place
2) even if you couldn't care less about that (which i'm sure many don't), do it for economic & demographic reasons.

b3t4

tallaght01 wrote: »

That leaves a big shortfall for the employer to fill, in high wage Ireland.

The employer does not have to top up the payments given by the government.

If a companies policy is such that they do not top up on government payments the only thing the company is at a loss for is one body for 6months. The company can get a temp to fill the position for the time the woman is unavailable and generally this is at a lower cost to the company.

A temp can also work in a companies favour as you can find some very good candidates through this process. This happened with my sister. She was taken on as a temp to cover a woman's maternity leave and the company is now looking to employ her fulltime.

My thoughts on feminism are that I'm extremely thankful for it.

A

Mikel

Why shouldn't the taxpayer subsidise maternity leave?

I don't think I should be paying for someone elses children. There is a system in place with a certain amount of paid leave. I just don't think the taxpayer should also bear the other costs.

Our economy benefits enormously from all the work that goes on in the home unpaid

Actually it's the other way round, if two house wives were to pay each other and switch around it would show as growth in the economy.

the average housewife (hate that word) would earn £30,000 on average if she were paid for the work she did.

So? If you take the things a housewife does and add up the market rates for them, what does that tell you? Nothing. If she Was paid by the Gov for doing so it would just be a transfer from the taxpayer to her.
My shopping took 2 hours this week, where can I pick up my cheque?

Just because something is hard work doesn't mean you should get paid for it.

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

I don't think I should be paying for someone elses children. There is a system in place with a certain amount of paid leave. I just don't think the taxpayer should also bear the other costs.

Why not? You are benefiting other people's children, and will do in the future. What do you think would happen if everyone in this country decided not to have kids anymore? Again, I reference the huge problems facing Japan today.

Mikel wrote: »

Actually it's the other way round, if two house wives were to pay each other and switch around it would show as growth in the economy.

It may show up as growth in the economy, but it would cause a huge increase in the cost of goods and thus reduce our competitiveness. We can see this in how much childcare costs are affecting the incomes of working parents today. In many cases, one partner's salary goes almost entirely towards paying childcare fees.

Mikel wrote: »

So? If you take the things a housewife does and add up the market rates for them, what does that tell you? Nothing. If she Was paid by the Gov for doing so it would just be a transfer from the taxpayer to her.
My shopping took 2 hours this week, where can I pick up my cheque?

Just because something is hard work doesn't mean you should get paid for it.

I am not so much talking about work around the home as looking after children. Work around the home can be reasonably done outside normal working hours. In other words, one person can work 9-6 and still have enough time to complete chores at home etc.

Imagine one person with a child - how does that person work a 9-5 job and look after a child, without any extra costs? S/he cannot. There are inevitably extra expenses with child care, etc.

Essentially, having children reduces the human capital of the person who has to look after those children ie s/he cannot go out to work/is severely limited in type/hours of work they can do. As outlined above, the economy benefits, nay, depends on the production of new generations to keep the whole thing going. Moreover, the other partner depends on this person giving up their human capital so that they can go out and earn money. The entire capitalist system functions on this basis.

Thus, if the true cost of the 'official' work being done in the office is not being compensated for, someone is benefiting: companies, people without kids, the governmnet? This cost is effectively externalised to the other partner and is unpaid. If this cost were to be internalised into the cost of living of a family, they would struggle (as can be seen in families where both parents work.

It is no coincidence that countries with good gender equality records have healthy or improving birth rates (see Scandinavia) and those with bad gender equality records have undesirable birth rates (see many Mediterranean countries & Japan). The other side of the coin is developing nations where lack of education & women's rights leads to women having children that they don't want & cannot support.

sorry am in essay mode - am i making sense at all?

Mikel

Why not? You are benefiting other people's children, and will do in the future. What do you think would happen if everyone in this country decided not to have kids anymore?

What are the chances of that happening?

it may show up as growth in the economy, but it would cause a huge increase in the cost of goods and thus reduce our competitiveness.

Thats not true. If they paid each other 1k a month, there would be no net change to anything. GNP would go up by 2k.
What reduces competitiveness is costs borne by industry, eg maternity leave.

Imagine one person with a child - how does that person work a 9-5 job and look after a child, without any extra costs? S/he cannot. There are inevitably extra expenses with child care, etc.

Who said they SHOULD be able to work a 9 to 5?
Sure there are costs, the question is who bears them?
There are existing benefits, you could argue that they should be increased but I don't even know what they are.
I don't however agree that the taxpayer should be subsidising it.
People should take responsibility for their own decisions. It is ridiculous to expect to have a family and for others to bear the costs.
If the benefits down outweigh them, don't have children.

Midna

Mikel wrote: »

Sure there are costs, the question is who bears them?
There are existing benefits, you could argue that they should be increased but I don't even know what they are.
I don't however agree that the taxpayer should be subsidising it.
People should take responsibility for their own decisions. It is ridiculous to expect to have a family and for others to bear the costs.
If the benefits down outweigh them, don't have children.

what happens if we end up like austria? Our population is already ageing and if people give up families for career then you could end up with a declining population. To compensate a death rate above their brith rate, austria now pay 100% for 16 weeks!!!
I think that is excessive, but there has to be SOME incentive for women to give up their time and career progression to have children.
I totally understand a view that in terms of long-term personnel investment, a man may be viewed as a better option because of maternity. That doesn't mean women should suffer in terms of pay and career. All that does is keep the status quo of men as breadwinners, which I think we can all agree, is no longer the desire for most.
As far as feminists go, I still can't stand many of them. I think the ones who shout loudest do more damage than good and aren't pushing equality they are pushing something else. Its like the LGB (of which I was a member) when I was in college. They cried out that they wanted to be treated no different to anyone else, but then wanted signs and stickers saying "LGB-friendly" on office doors and classrooms. Alot of feminism pushes the same buttons.

EDIT - and why is it EVERY discussion or debate I've seen on feminism drags up female genital mutilation???? That isn't an issue for feminism, thats an issue on cultures. Give it a rest!!!!!

Macha

Midna wrote: »

EDIT - and why is it EVERY discussion or debate I've seen on feminism drags up female genital mutilation???? That isn't an issue for feminism, thats an issue on cultures. Give it a rest!!!!!

Eh..how do you manage to separate feminism and culture so effectively? The two are inextricably linked. A patriarchal society tends to result in practices that are disciminitory against women - FGM is one of them.

Do you know what the logic is behind FGM? One of the main ones is that it reduces promiscuity in women by removing the woman's enjoyment of sex. This logic assumes that women do not have the right to:
a) enjoy sex
b) choose who they have sex with

It also suggests that she is incapable of pracising self control.

Im my mind, all of these ideas are incredibly misogynistic - hence their interest for feminists.

Sorry but if I were to get worked up over something it would be forced FDM and NOT the context in which people are talking about how terrible it is.