Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
LMFAO
At what point will gender equality stop
- Thread starter fez
- Start date
LMFAO
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
[citation required]
It would be very difficult to separate the social norm from any genetic predisposition. Even if it could be proven there is a genetic desire as you state, society is at a point where the social norm could counteract this.
There is no logical reason for the dichotomy you've suggested.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,296
- Location
- In a house
It's because it's an option now. It simply was not before.
Generally it makes financial sense for the lowest earner to become the home parent. This (in the past) usually meant the male stayed in work (ignoring any psychological or biological drivers) to ensure money kept flowing in!
I do think that even with completely equal opportunity, biological drivers and social conventions will always keep this skewed somewhat towards women staying at home.
As someone else said, it's the ability to do either thats important, even if couples choose to stick to the social "norm"..
Generally it makes financial sense for the lowest earner to become the home parent. This (in the past) usually meant the male stayed in work (ignoring any psychological or biological drivers) to ensure money kept flowing in!
I do think that even with completely equal opportunity, biological drivers and social conventions will always keep this skewed somewhat towards women staying at home.
As someone else said, it's the ability to do either thats important, even if couples choose to stick to the social "norm"..
There can be no "equality" when it comes to gender, the extremes of the feminist lobby will see to that.
As others have said, equality at work should be about experience, performance and length of service, not taking time out from a career to produce offspring and then walk back into the workplace and expect your career to have moved on as if you hadn't left.
Equality of opportunity, not quality of outcome is the key; every person should be offered the same opportunities, but if they choose not to take them up, or not maximise them to the fullest extent - for whatever reason, be it ability, attitude or otherwise - then that is down to them, not "The System" or "Gender Bias".
As others have said, equality at work should be about experience, performance and length of service, not taking time out from a career to produce offspring and then walk back into the workplace and expect your career to have moved on as if you hadn't left.
Equality of opportunity, not quality of outcome is the key; every person should be offered the same opportunities, but if they choose not to take them up, or not maximise them to the fullest extent - for whatever reason, be it ability, attitude or otherwise - then that is down to them, not "The System" or "Gender Bias".
There will always be a gap until men take on an equal share of child raising and domestic responsibilities.
It's great that Shared Parental Leave was introduced last year but it's going to take a couple of generations for attitudes to change.
It's great that Shared Parental Leave was introduced last year but it's going to take a couple of generations for attitudes to change.
Yup. Pretty much that!
this, though they might not necessarily change, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - people seem to want to force change under the pretext that everyone is the same, while people should be treated fairly there is a lot of personal preference that affects this from choice of subjects studied at university through to maternity
there is no reason to expect 50% of an Engineering course to be women necessarily, there is reason to ensure than any woman who chooses to study engineering isn't discriminated against or put off doing so by other factors and that women are encouraged to explore these options for study
however the approach to addressing this ought to be about encouragement and removal of barriers and not any artificial attempts to boost stats to some perceived level of where they ought to be by artificially changing grade requirements or promoting/hiring/giving pay rises on the basis of identity
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,143
- Location
- Uranus
Where i work (nhs) a women got a new job, 2 weeks later told new employer she was pregnant was off sick for most of the next 6 months (with pregnancy related illness) then had 1 years maternity leave, in that year got pregnant again had another bout of sickness etc then took 1 more year maternity leave, toward the end of this leave she informed new employer that she had found a new job and wouldn't be coming back! So in 2 and a half years she worked a few weeks and took a post that needed to be filled because we were short staffed to start with.
I work in a large office in a bank and do Real-time Management which involves planning around staff absences, etc. The amount of women who come to work, do their training, then go on mat leave to have children is incredible. It's not like they're here for a few years then go off, they do 12 weeks of training, aren't even passed their probation period, and then they're off work for the next year. It doesn't matter how poor they perform in their probation, the company can not fire them simply because they're pregnant. Then when they come back they'll need to be trained again, or they might leave, or request part time hours that differ from the one's they agreed when they first joined. All the time they're off we have to pay overtime to people to cover their job. Realistically women should have to take some responsibility and plan sensibly for a family, you should need to be employed for 1 or 2 years at a company before you can take paid time off to have children.
Funny you say that, I do know a girl who was a contractor for 3 years then suddenly decided she wanted a perm role... sure enough she was having a baby - barely worked in the role, took the maternity pay then quit and went back to contracting.
It isn't surprising that some small businesses are wary about hiring young females either.
However maternity pay is still pretty useful to society and plenty of people don't abuse it.
It isn't surprising that some small businesses are wary about hiring young females either.
However maternity pay is still pretty useful to society and plenty of people don't abuse it.
From the Army website:-
When you join the Army, you can be sure the challenges, rewards and opportunities are the same whether you’re male or female. And except for a few front-line combat roles, women have access to the same jobs, pay, training and promotion as men.
An Army job minus front line roles ... For the same money as someone who is risking their life.
Equality!
When you join the Army, you can be sure the challenges, rewards and opportunities are the same whether you’re male or female. And except for a few front-line combat roles, women have access to the same jobs, pay, training and promotion as men.
An Army job minus front line roles ... For the same money as someone who is risking their life.
Equality!
I'm not aware of a whole lot of companies who pay occupational maternity pay (OMP) to staff who've worked for less than a year.
They only have to pay statutory maternity pay (SMP), which they can reclaim 92% of.
E:
And, of course, OMP is entirely optional for companies - they can just stick to offering SMP if they wish.
Last edited:
Errmmm...
It just means they can get all the same jobs except they're excluded from some front line jobs.
It means men and women are entirely equal except women are cut out of one set of jobs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,943
Nobody should be given a free ride. Those who work hard should rise to the top, irrespective of gender.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen and the sexism argument comes into play.
If there are 100 job vacancies, and 100 men and 100 women apply. If all the men are better suited to the job, then 100 men should get the job. The reality, is that a certain percentage of women will get the job to avoid the employer any issues of favouring men over women.
Likewise, if all the women are better then all 100 women should get the jobs.
I think I should point out that 50/50 is equal as not everyone here understands that.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen and the sexism argument comes into play.
If there are 100 job vacancies, and 100 men and 100 women apply. If all the men are better suited to the job, then 100 men should get the job. The reality, is that a certain percentage of women will get the job to avoid the employer any issues of favouring men over women.
Likewise, if all the women are better then all 100 women should get the jobs.
I think I should point out that 50/50 is equal as not everyone here understands that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
Yup.... and can we blame employers for not wanting woman to do this and take the mick?
Wow..............................
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,943
Jessica Ennis Hill can run faster, and longer than I can
Quite correct. SMP is the bare minimum companies have to pay, and they reclaim the vast majority of that anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,943
so long as they offer an equally challenging role to offset the front line combat role, then their statement holds true. They have not mentioned risk anywhere in that statement.
Which is fair enough however that ignores the issue of how to replace that person on a temporary basis whilst not knowing if they will be back, when and for how long. Also, what do you do with their replacement when they do come back. I don't think this is an issue that can be resolved fairly honestly.