Will this feminist narrative become undone in the next world war?

A Little Pony

troyzer wrote: »

The Red Army had close to a million women serving in the Great Patriotic War. I don't think you could describe the Red Army as molly coddled. 

I fundamentally don't accept the OP's premise that allowing women into the armed services somehow undermines its fighting ability. As long as they're able to pass the same fitness tests as men, there really isn't an issue. You might have had a point 2,000 years ago when unit cohesion and physical strength were paramount but we don't live in that world anymore. The best soldiers are ones who use their head.

The Bolsheviks didn't have any honor, so that is not a surprise to find women in the Red Army.

Ipso

Imagine a war over something so stupid?

Grayson

The_Captain wrote: »

It's not really a good analogy though because women aren't being put to death for the crime of being raped in Ireland.

It is a good analogy. There are some who complain that if you point out women's rights issues in the west you're a hypocrite because you should mention women's rights in the rest of the world. It's not an either/or situation. The post I was replying to said

But hold on, what about the middle-east and the like? where women are being treated bad. You never hear about western-feminists trying to come together to sort that sh*t out

Firstly, there are loads of groups in the west that are vocal about about abuses elsewhere.
Secondly, women's and gay rights are the only area where you hear that stupid argument. You don't hear people complaining about homelessness here being told that the slums in India or Rio are worse. You don't hear people here who campaign against police abuses being told to go to china.

It's an argument used by people who don't like feminism and islam because they get to blend their two favorite subjects.

Grayson

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Bolsheviks didn't have any honor, so that is not a surprise to find women in the Red Army.

That's your argument? Honor? Are you living in the 1800's?

Grayson

Silver Lynel wrote: »

In the context of Feminism, I disagree.

Let's say we had a concept called "Homeism" and our definition was "Homeism is the belief that all human beings should have a roof over their heads and a safe place to sleep at night".

Let's say the stated goal of "Homeism" was to eradicate homelessness, just as the stated goal of Feminism is to eradicate gender inequality.

Now let's say that there are a bunch of "Homeinists" who don't actually do anything to solve the homelessness problem. Instead they complain constantly because they can't get a big house in a nice area for a low price. That would be your equivalent of modern, first world, Feminism.

In my opinion there is a MASSIVE difference between a Feminist who complains all day about there not being enough female superhero movies and a Feminist who campaigns to improve the lives of women in nations where they are genuinely treated like second class citizens.

Not to say that representation in media isn't important, it is. However, it seems like a Feminist who complains about Western popular culture while women are treated terribly in other parts of the world is a bit of a lazy Feminist.

If you believe that certain countries in the world need Feminism and need raised awareness and need better activism then surely you can see that taking up bandwidth with complaints about Manspreading and Mansplaining is counter productive and probably damaging to the movement.

The poster I was replying to said that western feminists never complain about womens treatment in arab countries. It's a blatant lie to state that western feminists don't care. It's also a false equivalency. Just because someone wants to raise awareness about local issues doesn't mean they don't care about international issues.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

jeanjolie wrote: »

Some feminists in the West want women to join in combat alongside men, /quote]

Taught this was already the case?

To whom?

dudara

Silver Lynel wrote: »

In the context of Feminism, I disagree.

Let's say we had a concept called "Homeism" and our definition was "Homeism is the belief that all human beings should have a roof over their heads and a safe place to sleep at night".

Let's say the stated goal of "Homeism" was to eradicate homelessness, just as the stated goal of Feminism is to eradicate gender inequality.

Now let's say that there are a bunch of "Homeinists" who don't actually do anything to solve the homelessness problem. Instead they complain constantly because they can't get a big house in a nice area for a low price. That would be your equivalent of modern, first world, Feminism.

In my opinion there is a MASSIVE difference between a Feminist who complains all day about there not being enough female superhero movies and a Feminist who campaigns to improve the lives of women in nations where they are genuinely treated like second class citizens.

Not to say that representation in media isn't important, it is. However, it seems like a Feminist who complains about Western popular culture while women are treated terribly in other parts of the world is a bit of a lazy Feminist.

If you believe that certain countries in the world need Feminism and need raised awareness and need better activism then surely you can see that taking up bandwidth with complaints about Manspreading and Mansplaining is counter productive and probably damaging to the movement.

There are many forms which feminism can take. These range from the extremely serious issues of female discrimination in Middle Eastern cultures, or female genital mutilation in Africa, down to the somewhat lesser topic of "man spreading" or "mansplaining".

However, all these issues exist and happen in this world. And to dismiss one person's activism as not being worthy because they are not seeking world peace and world equality for all is highly dismissive and highly superior.

Women are terrible. We should just get rid of them altogether, with their opinions and their rights and whathaveyou

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jeanjolie wrote: »

I hear people worry that while the West 'weakens' itself with trying to be to egalitarian at the expense of common sense, traditional societies are growing their populations and improving their young people...

No, let's be honest here. You don't hear people worry about that at all. Real people don't worry about things like that.


Get outside and enjoy the sun and a bit of fresh air.

Sweetemotion

Rule 3 respect goes both ways :pac:

dudara

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

There are many forms which feminism can take. These range from the extremely serious issues of female discrimination in Middle Eastern cultures, or female genital mutilation in Africa, down to the somewhat lesser topic of "man spreading" or "mansplaining".

However, all these issues exist and happen in this world. And to dismiss one person's activism as not being worthy because they are not seeking world peace and world equality for all is highly dismissive and highly superior.

Do you sincerely believe that "manspreading" and "mansplaining" are valid areas upon which to focus activism?

Do you feel the same way about "womanagging" and "femotional manipulation"?

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

If you are not a man then thank you for explaining this.

If you are a man then GTFO with your mansplaining.

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

I'm such a pedant, but the 18% figure above grieves me.

Let's say a woman is paid 18% less than a man, i.e. €82 for every €100 a man makes. This means that a man makes ~22% more than a woman. Hence, their sign should have a 22% premium for men.

I'd say name and shame any company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

Sweetemotion

Womens march in Iran 1979

Womens march in America 2017

Ipso

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Do you sincerely believe that "manspreading" and "mansplaining" are valid areas upon which to focus activism?

Do you feel the same way about "womanagging" and "femotional manipulation"?

Isn't mansplaining just an answer that someone doesn't like?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

The poster I was replying to said that western feminists never complain about womens treatment in arab countries. It's a blatant lie to state that western feminists don't care. It's also a false equivalency. Just because someone wants to raise awareness about local issues doesn't mean they don't care about international issues.

That's just silly.

EVERYONE knows you can only care about one thing at a time. Especially de wily ole feministers.

Silver Lynel

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'd say name and shame any company that company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

You'd have a hard time finding a large corporation that does this. Most will have pay brackets and all employees will fit into one of these brackets regardless of age, race or gender.

If they are headhunting a specific individual for a specific role then they might break the rules of their pay structure and employees who get a commission will have the commission part of their pay determined by how well they do the job. The BBC, for example, might specifically want Gary Lineker to present their football show and so he can demand a higher salary.

This might not be true for local business and might not be true for people who have been with companies for 20+ years.

Most European nations, and the USA and Canada, have some kind of equal pay or anti-discrimination laws preventing them from paying men and women different salaries based on gender and this is why most companies will pay ALL employees on, for example, "level 1" the same salary and all employees on "level 2" the same salary etc.

A few years ago you would see a lot of big companies outsourcing work to India because they can pay the workforce less and save significant amounts of money.

They obviously didn't realize they could have cut their spending on employee salaries by 22% by simply employing only women. Strange, that.

eyerer

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Rule 3 respect goes both ways :pac:

Wow, what a toxic dump.
Incidentally it would be illegal to have a place that charges women more because they're women. Doesn't go both ways..
Priority seating? I bet Rosa Parks would be proud.

marcus001

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

A subject for another day but no two people doing the same job to the same standqandnlevel should be paid based on 'negotiating skills'.

We all know there are still businesses where women are just paid less because they are women

There's that word. "Should". "Should" doesn't come into it. "Is" is all that matters.

You think it's better to demand to live in a world where negotiation is unnecessary than to actually learn to negotiate. Infantile attitude.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

marcus001 wrote: »

There's that word. "Should". "Should" doesn't come into it. "Is" is all that matters.

You think it's better to demand to live in a world where negotiation is unnecessary than to actually learn to negotiate. Infantile attitude.

I accept most of what you say (except the cheap 'infantile attitude' dig) but many many jobs do not depend on negotiation of salary and have fixed rates. Indeed most jobs do not have negotiated wages.

It's a moot point anyway, as I was simply replying to a serial re-reg who is since banned and the post I was referencing is now gone. So you can hold your piece and keep the insults for somebody else.

bear1

jeanjolie wrote: »

I know you guys hate gender threads on After Hours but this is a serious question that's more critical of the movement in a constructive way.

People say that feminists don't get that a lot of gender norms originate due to innate biological differences in the physical and mental aspects of males and females. To what extent is debatable, but it is there.

Some feminists in the West want women to join in combat alongside men, drafts to be abolished, men to reject masculinity but I hear people worry that while the West 'weakens' itself with trying to be to egalitarian at the expense of common sense, traditional societies are growing their populations and improving their young people will common sense approaches to a future progressive society that still preserve gender roles.

So, if god forbids, Trump joins with liberal Western Europe in a war against Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world with Russia joining in, will our molycoddled young soliders lose?

Your threads scare me.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bear1 wrote: »

Your threads scare me.

Scare you? Me too. I suspect they scare him as well.

bear1

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

Scare you? Me too. I suspect they scare him as well.

Pictures the op screaming when he/she hits the post button.

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'd say name and shame any company that pays a woman 18% less than a man. Doing the same work and same hours.

Do you know of any such company?

Here's a sample of what I've read recently, aside from the BBC and RTE news

Just 7 companies have published gender pay gap data

Deloitte publishes pay gap data

Church of England reveals 41% gender pay gap at central office

jeanjolie

bear1 wrote: »

Your threads scare me.

What is so terriying about my postings on After Hours?

marcus001

Leif Loud Grit wrote: »

I accept most of what you say (except the cheap 'infantile attitude' dig) but many many jobs do not depend on negotiation of salary and have fixed rates. Indeed most jobs do not have negotiated wages.

It's a moot point anyway, as I was simply replying to a serial re-reg who is since banned and the post I was referencing is now gone. So you can hold your piece and keep the insults for somebody else.

So if the rates are fixed, how is there discrimination?

If the wage disparity is only happening in the negotiable jobs then doesn't that prove his point?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

marcus001 wrote: »

So if the rates are fixed, how is there discrimination?

If the wage disparity is only happening in the negotiable jobs then doesn't that prove his point?

What point? He was trolling and got a troll-deserving reply. Relax. I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just yanking his chain as I knew who he was.

Grayson

bear1 wrote: »

Pictures the op screaming when he/she hits the post button.

bear1

Fcukin lold at that Grayson

bear1

jeanjolie wrote: »

What is so terriying about my postings on After Hours?

Oh I don't know, but you seem to have a lot of threads that are either about gender or sex or your infamous Ireland sucks thread.

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

Here's a sample of what I've read recently, aside from the BBC and RTE news

Just 7 companies have published gender pay gap data

Deloitte publishes pay gap data

Church of England reveals 41% gender pay gap at central office

None of them state hours worked. Just taking the average pay of each gender.

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

None of them state hours worked. Just taking the average pay of each gender.

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Sweetemotion

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

You hit the nail on the head.

Same pay for less hours and commitment. Do you think that's fair?

Grayson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head.

Same pay for less hours and commitment. Do you think that's fair?

So, without any evidence to suggest it, you're assuming that one gender is paid more for less hours.

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

So, without any evidence to suggest it, you're assuming that one gender is paid more for less hours.

Where did I say that?

Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental tenet in any civilized country.

Equal work cannot be assumed however just because people work in the same company though.

What we need to ensure and prove is that equal opportunity exists and also to understand that this doesn't guarantee equality of outcome.

And finally, older generations can skew figures. We need to know what's happening now.

red ears

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Hours worked always matter. Unless we want women getting a higher hourly rate than men to even out the gap in total earnings. I as a man certainly do not accept that.

Btw i know of three women recently who have decided not to go for promotions because it would involve extra hours. They just do not want to work a full 40 hrs or more. How would they appear in the so called gender pay gap stats? Feminists would say they are underpaid relative to men. But the reality is they are choosing that outcome.

marcus001

If you could get the same amount of work out of women for less money then every company would want to hire only women. Feminists still can't answer for this.

marcus001

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

You think that just because a job is salaried that hours worked don't matter?

andekwarhola

Threads like this signal that AH has reached peak postmodern. You see the title and realize that most of the 'real' is now indistinguishable from pastiche.

Silver Lynel

dudara wrote: »

Most are probably salaried, where hours worked don't matter. Only guessing mind

Hours worked WILL matter as employees progress through their career.

One might move up through the different pay brackets depending on performance reviews etc and the amount of time an employee puts in will have an impact on this.

It will have an impact on promotions and bonuses etc.

One of the biggest failings of the "pay gap" argument is that nobody seems to look at case studies that would show actual sexism in action.

If you look at, say, 2 McDonalds employess. Both one week into their careers at Mcdonalds. Both at the stage where they are doing cashier duties and nothing else. Is the male employee being paid more than the female employee?

If you look at them again in a year where the man has been working extra hours and covering shifts etc and the woman hasn't been doing this quite so much then you are no longer comparing like for like. Of course he will be getting paid more. They would have done a salary review and he will have been moved up a level based on merit. In summary, he is actually earning more.

When people say "equal pay for equal work" they need to show examples of people in the exact same position for the exact same time getting paid differently because of gender.

That's what I'm not seeing. Honest, transparent, case studies where we can clearly see that Company X has a blatant sexist/racist/whatever pay structure.

The only counter argument I see to that is "well they are just hiding it well" or the extremely vague "unconscious bias" argument.

Outside of that we might see jobs being boiled down to a title like "programmer" and then say that "male programmers get paid more than female programmers" but this removes any detail from their job description allowing a programmer who works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, to be compared to a programmer who works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

An example that doesn't work would be like saying the male actor in a movie got paid more than the female actor in the same movie. Firstly, their pay will be negotiated by their agent most likely. Secondly, they are playing different roles in the movie. You can't boil their job down to "Actor" and then point out that there are different sized paychecks being taken home at the end of the day.

This isn't an honest assessment of a situation. It's an attempt to craft a narrative that will then be sold to wider society.

How about this...

If Single Mother A earns 60,000 per year and spends 50% of it on her son and Married Man B earns 120,000 per year and spends 75% of it on his wife and daughter then is that a net gain for women?

jackofalltrades

Lies, damned lies, statistics and then the gender pay gap.

It has to be one of the most disingenuous uses of statistics I've seen in a long time.
It really should be called out repeatedly until people won't use it anymore due to fear of ridicule.
What really matters is the unexplained gender pay gap and what causes it.

Single women in this country out earn single men by 18%, it's rare you see this being mentioned.
So the issue looks like it stems from caring for children.

Grayson

Silver Lynel wrote: »

If you look at, say, 2 McDonalds employess. Both one week into their careers at Mcdonalds. Both at the stage where they are doing cashier duties and nothing else. Is the male employee being paid more than the female employee?

But you're also assuming that the male works more. That's the problem with most arguments against the pay gap. They state that men work more hours etc and that's why they get paid more.

And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker.

Google are being sued at the moment. Stats from the department of labour show that women's pay is 6 standard deviations out compared to men. That's massive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/08/09/one-in-100-million-chance-alleged-gender-pay-gap-at-google-is-random-says-class-action-lawyer/#35b747f12d52

The class-action would follow a suit against the tech giant filed earlier this year by the United States Department of Labor, which said it found evidence of an "extreme" gender pay gap at the company. Finberg said the class-action case will draw on the DOL analysis, which found between six and seven standard deviations between wage rates of men and women based on a snapshot of the salaries of 21,000 workers at Google's Mountain View headquarters.

"How do you explain that?" Finberg asked. "The chance of that occurring randomly is one in 100 million."

Silver Lynel

Grayson wrote: »

But you're also assuming that the male works more. That's the problem with most arguments against the pay gap. They state that men work more hours etc and that's why they get paid more.

And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker.

Google are being sued at the moment. Stats from the department of labour show that women's pay is 6 standard deviations out compared to men. That's massive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/08/09/one-in-100-million-chance-alleged-gender-pay-gap-at-google-is-random-says-class-action-lawyer/#35b747f12d52

I'm not assuming anything.

I am saying that we need to see actual case studies to see the "gender pay gap" in action.

So if a large corporation like Google employs 2 people in the same role today are they being paid the same today? We need to see examples of this.

There's no point in comparing the same 2 employees in a year when their career paths have started to diverge.

Is there a Gender Pay Gap in minimum wage jobs where all employees earn the minimum wage? Obviously not.

Now consider a company that has certain levels of pay for certain employees. All employees on Level One for example are being paid the same regardless of race, gender etc. Employees can move from Level One to Level Two but then a comparison between Level One employees and Level Two employees is not like for like.

You said: "And the crazy thing is that for salaried workers, if you get the your job done in less time than you are a better worker"

That statement is only true if the work is finite. If a job consisted of, say, processing orders then there is an endless stream of orders. One employee might process 350 orders per day while another only processes 300. They get the same salary NOW, yes, but when promotion time comes around this will count for something. When bonus time comes around this will count for something.

Your Google example says they compared 21,000 salaries. So did they just divide them into "men" and "women", take an average and say "see!"?

This is part of the problem. You need to take specific employees and make a deep comparison to see why Employee A earns more than Employee B.

The Gender Wage Gap answers the question of what is the difference between men and womens salaries on average. It does nothing to address why.

We could solve the pay gap tomorrow by giving every woman a raise that would be equivalent to Total Male Wages minus Total Female Wages divided by Number Of Females In The Company. Would all the women have earned that pay raise?

Like I said, you need to have specific case studies that focus on individuals to actually see the pay gap in action.

Just looking at what "men" earn and then looking at what "women" earn is missing all of the specific details that would reveal exactly why this happens.

dudara

marcus001 wrote: »

You think that just because a job is salaried that hours worked don't matter?

Sorry, I wasn't clear when I said that.

The hours worked will matter when it comes to aspects such as evaluation, bonus and promotion, which all increase earning ability.

But in terms of monthly core salary, no, hours worked don't matter, unless you also have an overtime arrangement. This is why using base salary as a metric is difficult as it can conceal differences in work levels.

Manic Moran

hairyslug wrote: »

I watched Starship troopers last night, highly recommended, 7 stars

Honestly, that is the best answer. However, I don't think, for example, the US is ready for that sort of thing.

I'm not sure that any country is. The closest that any nation has gotten to integrated military in conventional combat was Israel, and they gave since backed away from it. Examples from the Red Army tend to involve individual females, such as pilots or snipers, not mixed units. The closest being tank crews, and even that was rare and tankers are a different breed to infantry. Professional militaries which have integrated like Canada or Ireland have not been tested. The concern isn't whether or not women can do the jobs, but the effect it has on the operation of the unit. Until we have run out of men to fill infantry slots, or until we get over our prudishness which prevents sharing shower facilities or whatnot*, what benefit do we get from total integration?

*Granted, combat has a way of rearranging your priorities, and such peacetime concerns would probably vanish very quickly, but as we say, train as you fight.

pwurple

At this stage in my life, I think women work just as hard, but there are two major differences.

First of all, the negotiation skills are missing. I think it can be taught, but it isn't. I was in the lucky position to have some exposure as a child in the family business. Saw customers haggling, negotiations with suppliers etc. I learnt how to do it young.

I most certainly did it every time my pay was discussed. I never took a 5% increment if offered, I haggled it up, armed with industry averages, demanding they look at my peers wages etc.

I'm pretty much self-employed now, doing contract/consult work. I charge what the market can bear. I've done many many pay reviews for staff. Very few other women behave as I do in a pay review, insisting the increment doesn't apply to them etc. Plenty of them probably work similar jobs to me, are more intelligent, better with people etc, but my theory is that sometimes, if they are not paid as much, it could be because they didn't demand it. I can't OFFER a 10% pay rise to bring someone up to their peer. I can offer 5%, they have to demand the rest. Now, that's not to say someone may assume because they are female, they *should* be paid less... maybe that happens too.


Second difference is this.. It still pisses me off that I couldn't transfer my leave after having babies to my husband. I'm self-employed, pay my tax and PRSI, but if I'm not working , I'm not earning. ( And neither is anyone else depending on me btw ) Baby arrived, first 12 weeks or so, I'm recovering myself, bit broke now, could REALLY do with going back to work. No crèche will take a 3 month old, and I kinda don't want to do that anyway... but hey I think, I can transfer it to my husband, he will take some time off, and we'll be ok. His company pays full mat leave. Oh wait. Department of social protection says no. There is only one case in which mat leave can be transferred to husband. Guess that situation? Death of Mother. Cheers guys, I'll give that one a miss.

This kind of difference drives a lot of women's decisions on employment. Will I take this crappier, lower paid secure job, because it's effectively the govt sanctioned way of dealing with maternity. Or, will I take this kick-ass lucrative slightly risky job with no maternity. AND I have no way of transferring anything to my husband should I need to. What do you think happens? These policies have an impact.

Resist ZOG

Want to end the so-called pay gap? Make women spend less time raising their children and more time working. That's the only fair way to do it.

professore

pwurple wrote: »

At this stage in my life, I think women work just as hard, but there are two major differences.

First of all, the negotiation skills are missing. I think it can be taught, but it isn't. I was in the lucky position to have some exposure as a child in the family business. Saw customers haggling, negotiations with suppliers etc. I learnt how to do it young.

I most certainly did it every time my pay was discussed. I never took a 5% increment if offered, I haggled it up, armed with industry averages, demanding they look at my peers wages etc.

I'm pretty much self-employed now, doing contract/consult work. I charge what the market can bear. I've done many many pay reviews for staff. Very few other women behave as I do in a pay review, insisting the increment doesn't apply to them etc. Plenty of them probably work similar jobs to me, are more intelligent, better with people etc, but my theory is that sometimes, if they are not paid as much, it could be because they didn't demand it. I can't OFFER a 10% pay rise to bring someone up to their peer. I can offer 5%, they have to demand the rest. Now, that's not to say someone may assume because they are female, they *should* be paid less... maybe that happens too.


Second difference is this.. It still pisses me off that I couldn't transfer my leave after having babies to my husband. I'm self-employed, pay my tax and PRSI, but if I'm not working , I'm not earning. ( And neither is anyone else depending on me btw ) Baby arrived, first 12 weeks or so, I'm recovering myself, bit broke now, could REALLY do with going back to work. No crèche will take a 3 month old, and I kinda don't want to do that anyway... but hey I think, I can transfer it to my husband, he will take some time off, and we'll be ok. His company pays full mat leave. Oh wait. Department of social protection says no. There is only one case in which mat leave can be transferred to husband. Guess that situation? Death of Mother. Cheers guys, I'll give that one a miss.

This kind of difference drives a lot of women's decisions on employment. Will I take this crappier, lower paid secure job, because it's effectively the govt sanctioned way of dealing with maternity. Or, will I take this kick-ass lucrative slightly risky job with no maternity. AND I have no way of transferring anything to my husband should I need to. What do you think happens? These policies have an impact.

Now HERE is a genuine issue I can get behind. Not manspreading or mansplaining BS. I think this was the point Kevin Myers was actually trying to make about the "2 Jewish women" at the BBC but made an utter hames of it.