its disturbing you use MRA as a negative there.
Gender Pay Gap
- Thread starter Nix
- Start date
its disturbing you use MRA as a negative there.
Because children can't interact with their siblings and other children at the play ground
No, its the place where people ignore their own material best interests, because they have been deluded by propaganda or fashion, or both.
No wonder they have to increase it to 30 hours a week when it is costing mothers to be fashionable chained to the work desk.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
This is true,
I know it's not exactly the fairest to discriminate but I also see it from a business owners perspective if he's relatively small and can't afford to take the hit financially.
Swearing in video.
It's strange how Milo Yanopopoddoodulus and Gavin McInnes, two of the most obnoxious Katie Hopkins-esque MRA clickbait trolls are cited in this thread. Kinda makes me think another agenda is being pushed here.
FWIW, I work for myself so identity and workplace politics can go spit in the wind.
So nice of you to contribute to the discussion by pointing out that the video should be removed due to a technicality rule-breach, rather than attempting to counter any of the points made in it.
What makes Milo Yiannopoulos a Troll? Is it because he has opinions and points of view that differ from yours? What makes him obnoxious? Is it because he refuses to be silenced by screeching harridans and makes sure that his voice can be heard?
What about your agenda that you're trying to push? You mention "Toxic well-known MRAs". Are you attempting to characterise all MRAs as "toxic"? Perhaps that's related to your agenda. What makes Milo Yiannopoulos "toxic"?
Seems to be standard RadFem tactics these days, belittle and attack the standing and character of any/all who disagree with them.
Last edited:
I completely see your point, in the current system someone always loses out unfortunately (either small companies or women).
Do you acutally have any evidence to back that up or is it just a wild stab in the dark?
I get that child care is expensive and that if you're not earning a huge amount you could be spending a similar amount or more compared to what you earn on child care. Obviously whether someone stays at home and looks after the child or they both work and get child care is something every family has to consider. There's also the longer term consideration of whether it's worth continuing with a career, even if child care costs more, because of the benefit in increased salary later on.
Because children can't interact with their siblings and other children at the play ground
No, its the place where people ignore their own material best interests, because they have been deluded by propaganda or fashion, or both.
No wonder they have to increase it to 30 hours a week when it is costing mothers to be fashionable chained to the work desk.
Not every child has siblings.
Kids didn't used to be raised alone in a house by their mothers they used to be raised in groups either while their mothers worked together ror while they worked and they were watched by others
One parent watching one child is a rather wasteful and limiting way to rise children, they do better in groups.
Wait now you are blaming fashion? ?
If your small don't the government give you the money for the maternity leave?
You answered your own question. It is clear that in the first half of the last century that a working class father could support a much larger family of 4~ children. This century however men will be pegged back by equality and even their own wife causing a loss to household finances for a chance of an increased salary later on. The guaranteed negatives of the chance, children will be raised by other unknown women in the day orphanage and increased stress levels for everyone in the family. Meanwhile every tax payer is paying for the ever expanding network of day orphanages, where abandoned children are detained without trial for long hours, while their mothers are chained to desks miles away.
For these reasons I am out.
the first half of the last century people didn't have toilets inside their house, and regularly died pneumonia when winter came.
not to mention those 4 children were also working along with their parents. (you aren't thinking that just because the mum was at home she wasn't working are you?)
best sentence ever written...
how old are you out of curiosity?
don't be so silly, women cannot be happy at work, or being intendant, women can only be happy sat at home dutifully raising children and having meals ready for when their husband comes home from work each day.
Most children do have siblings and I feel sorry for those without, they need their mother at home even more that has their best interest at heart by taking them to the local playground and helping their child make friends asap.
Children would be better brought-up by other mothers in the street that are family friends. Neighbourhoods often deserted by day, would revive. Much better than nationalised childhood spun by Germaine Greer and the Fat Cats of Corporations that cost us all money and the wellbeing of our children.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
You keep saying "brought up by the mother".
Does is have to be the mother, or can't the father do it?
Surely "a parent" would suffice?
Does is have to be the mother, or can't the father do it?
Surely "a parent" would suffice?
Nice straw man but I will bite. People still die of pneumonia in Britain in their own homes when winter comes.
Can you tell me what job babies and toddler's were doing and why it's worse than being in a day orphanage.
Thank you.
There is a profile button somewhere over there <---------
Women are horrible in that sense
In the case of British state schools that start at 4 years old that indoctrinate their pupils by telling them what to think and not how to think, I am a homeschooling "gimp" all day long. Yes I am against vaccinations. Any more help you need with your mental picture?
If it makes you feel better, an Unknown professional woman, professional in what I have no idea. I'd hazard a guess that a mother trumps a professional woman.
Perhaps some do. Isn't it also a possibility a majority do not?
Perhaps some do. Isn't it also a possibility a majority of babies would rather be close to their mothers being breast fed than having a professional unknown woman bottle feeding them with formula? Moses I have the benefit of the doubt, I don't have to look up one source, can you demonstrate that day orphanages are better? Can you show that I am wrong? But calling me a gimp is fine too
Last edited:
A child having their father at home of course is much better than having a professional unknown woman. They are very lucky to have you.
The horrible liberal Woodrow Wilson, who eventually became President of the United States, would disagree with me though "Our aim is to turn out young men as unlike their fathers as possible."
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
What are your thoughts on fluoride in the water supply?
Be interesting to see if this happens and watch the rates go through the roof for additional hours as apparently the government isn't giving any extra money to fund 15 additional free hours per child every week.
Far less than in the past time/place you were referring to. The past was not necessarily better and was usually worse overall. That doesn't actually counter your point, which is that until relatively recently a single income was enough to support a family. What does counter your point is that it wasn't true for poorer people (and there were a lot of them) and the average standard of living is much higher than it was then. So much so that there has been a significant increase in average height due to the huge decrease in childhood malnourishment.
Can you tell me why all children are babies and toddlers?
The issue of children working first started to be seriously considered in this country in Victorian times, but it was the norm outside of wealthy families certainly for all of recorded hstory and probably before then too. The main reason it became an issue at the time it did was technological advances because that meant many people (of all ages) were working in industrial jobs rather than agricultural jobs and that caused many problems including a reduction in employement and the consequent reduction in the value of low-end wages, which meant that in many families it was a requirement that children worked even though they got paid less per hour for their work.
Here, for example, is the text of one of the reports into children working in coal mines that was ordered by Queen Victoria after a mining accident that killed 26 children working in the mine gained a lot of public attention. This is just the part for Derbyshire. The whole set of reports was extremely lengthy because once the issue attracted serious political attention every aspect of it was examined everywhere in the country. Mines and factories, mostly.
http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1842_Derbyshire.pdf
The starting age for working in coal mines was as low as 6 years old, though 8-10 was more usual. Not a baby or toddler, but still a child. A lot of data was gathered all over the country and it was very detailed. That report, which was only on coal mines in only one county, is 149 pages long and it's only the final summary report of one industry in one county. The result of the set of reports was that it was made illegal to employ children under 10 below ground in a mine.
In factories younger children worked more often because there was more work that didn't require much strength. The accidental death and maiming rates were high.
Some examples from the same series of reports can be found here:
http://vichist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/child-labour-in-victorian-england.html
Last edited: