What women (don't) want.

[midnight]

*Cancels weekend to Paris and books a week away with mates*..

Cheers

I knew you'd love this, Fred!

I'll give that part of the debate a rest though, it needs it.

[bunique]

I'm lucky to have a really supportive boss (a single mother, btw), otherwise I wouldn't have it so good (regarding working from home etc, my previous boss would never have agreed to that).

On the downside, I have to deal with local politicians quite a lot - if that doesn't put you off........

I do too! Or do when not on maternity leave. And that's not even the worst part of my job

[russycarps]

Yes, usually 4 weeks before the due date, any pregnancy related sickness automatically triggers maternity leave (even if it was just one day).

Btw, friend of mine who was expecting at the same time as me lost her contract as soon as they heard she was pregnant. Technically illegal, but with shorter contracts very easily done.

Nothing personal girls. Just a "cold emotionless business decision".

That was a cold emotionless business decision though. It wasn't made because she was a woman, it was made because she would lessen the efficiency of the business.

It's capitalism, not sexism.

[eFestivals]

That's my question, right through this thread.

but its based within a not-normal idea of patriarchy. What you quoted implies a concious decision ... and I don't meet many people who "believe" man's right to lord it over women.

Do you?

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy suggests males enjoy power throughout society, so we'd have to look at precisely what's meant by that.

try it the other way. Try and think of anything which is not infected by a male definition.

I think you might have difficulties finding even one thing.

[eFestivals]

I'm seriously going to have to make the effort to read that thread back.

just think how much bollocks would never have happened if you'd done so when I first suggested it.

[eFestivals]

It's a nice double bind that patriarchy's (or is it feminism, since it's a feminist theory) got ging for itself here.

just because you don't like what it says doesn't make it untrue.

All you have to do to disprove it is to say what isn't male-defined.

Easy, huh?

[eFestivals]

I opened this thread hoping to find an interesting debate.

How wrong I was. I cannot be arsed to even attempt to read all of it, seems like it's yet another "It's my website so I'm right/you're all wrong" borefest.

Missing Worm eh Neil?

He spoke more sense than tony does, that's for sure.

You might be happy to go along with literal illiteracy and think that an academic take, or you might be happy to illiteracy to dominate.

Others have a greater connection to truth.

You don't have to be here. Do you visit your local bank to express your disgust at what the bankers have done?

[russycarps]

if a man could get pregnant, then a comparison could be made

and it's interesting (but not surprising) how a female boss (midnight's) is more sympathetic

that's where things could improve

If a man could get pregnant, he would be treated in exactly the same way.

A "sympathetic boss" is a bad boss, in capitalist terms.

Now your view that women are more sympathetic than men on the otherhand is not a statement I am comfortable with at all, and in fact is quite offensive.

It reveals you to be a dinosaur.

Edited February 18, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

and it's interesting (but not surprising) how a female boss (midnight's) is more sympathetic

no matter how sympathetic she might be, nothing of that sympathy can avoid a woman off work to give birth having a negative impact on that business.

[eFestivals]

I'm the dinosaur?

did you read what he said, rather than make it up? It gives you a clue.

[russycarps]

I'm the dinosaur?

dinosaurs had bad eyesight and poor reading comprehension, so yes very much so.

[bunique]

no matter how sympathetic she might be, nothing of that sympathy can avoid a woman off work to give birth having a negative impact on that business.

Is it always negative? In financial terms maybe but only if an employer is offering occupational maternity pay - can't they claim the majority of statutory maternity pay back from HMRC?

In my case, a colleague on a lower grade within our own team was appointed as my maternity cover so for her it's a positive - she gets 9-12 months experience and a higher salary, and when I go back it will mean there is someone else within the wider team who knows a bit more about my job and so can answer queries in my absence (previously they had to wait til I was back). Her post is also being back filled, giving someone else in the organisation an opportunity to progress. If it's managed right, there can be positives too, no?

[eFestivals]

Is it always negative? In financial terms maybe but only if an employer is offering occupational maternity pay - can't they claim the majority of statutory maternity pay back from HMRC?

care to tell me of any business that doesn't suffer when one (wo)man down?

Just in case you're getting me wrong, I'm not trying to place blame any against women around this, I'm merely recognising the business impact.

[bunique]

care to tell me of any business that doesn't suffer when one (wo)man down?

Just in case you're getting me wrong, I'm not trying to place blame any against women around this, I'm merely recognising the business impact.

No, I know there is a bit of "robbing peter to pay Paul" that has to happen initially to fill all posts but in this particular example, the only thing missing is me (and clearly I'm pretty fucking special but not irreplaceable ) - all empty posts are filled, to the benefit of those filling them, and ultimately the benefit of the organisation in that those individuals filling the posts are being upskilled. And as Tony points out, hopefully encouraging some employee loyalty (though I can't promise to stay loyal!).

I appreciate I'm in the public sector so not so profit driven. I do think that if the value of the above (staff development, etc) was quantified it might balance out the financial burden of "losing" a member of staff to maternity leave.

[eFestivals]

No, I know there is a bit of "robbing peter to pay Paul" that has to happen initially to fill all posts but in this particular example, the only thing missing is me (and clearly I'm pretty fucking special but not irreplaceable ) - all empty posts are filled, to the benefit of those filling them, and ultimately the benefit of the organisation in that those individuals filling the posts are being upskilled. And as Tony points out, hopefully encouraging some employee loyalty (though I can't promise to stay loyal!).

I appreciate I'm in the public sector so not so profit driven. I do think that if the value of the above (staff development, etc) was quantified it might balance out the financial burden of "losing" a member of staff to maternity leave.

yes, any vacancy is likely to get filled, but there's still a financial cost in doing so.

There's no getting away from that part, and neither can you get away from the business disruption that staff replacement causes (even tho in the more menial jobs this might be very small).

Nothing can be tackled without it first being recognised. Trying to pretend-away these things does nothing to advance women.

[bunique]

I agree with you - isn't the next step to try to look at positive slants on a situation that ultimately can't be changed (women will always be going on mat leave)?

[eFestivals]

Should women (who might want to have babies) simply resign themselves to never having the opportunities that men have then?

If you think so tony.

[eFestivals]

I agree with you - isn't the next step to try to look at positive slants on a situation that ultimately can't be changed (women will always be going on mat leave)?

I'd say it would be too much going down a path where you could only bang your head against the wall, as things atand at the mo. Which is probably why the focus is mostly around jobs currently.

I'd say there's far better places to attack where there isn't that sort of pre-determined thing making it seemingly irresolvable. Having attacked those easier targets it might well be the case that it gives better vision for how to tackle the more-complex issues such as the issues caused by pregnancy.

[eFestivals]

Seemed like a reasonable question.

Only you can know, seeing as it's you that asked it.

[bunique]

Soooo... Representations of women in the media would be one such target, right?

[eFestivals]

Soooo... Representations of women in the media would be one such target, right?

Yup, it's definitely one of the easier ones - tho I'm not trying to suggest it's easy. The most easily identifiable and largest target is Page 3, and we're back where we started.

It's certainly not changed by women being proud to do it, and other women proudly supporting them. That only gives us what we already have.

[eFestivals]

You don't have an opinion on it?

Don't you?

If you do, I'm surprised you needed to ask the question. If you don't, well....

[eFestivals]

I've given my opinion. You rejected it, which is fine.

Do you have one?

I've missed you giving your opinion on that, tho why you'd need to ask a question of yourself when you have a stated opinion on it, I've no idea.

I can't have rejected what I've no seen, but if I've rejected it, why are you then asking my opinion for what you say I've already rejected?

You seem to be managing to have the same (non)sense as you had yesterday, but i'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.

[feral chile]

Do you think the changes to paternity leave are positive changes?

Whether we like it or not, women are the ones who give birth and breastfeed, so even a completely egalitarian society would have to allow for this.

Do you think the move to service industries and away from heavy industry has had an effect on 'patriarchy', a more socially acceptable female presence in the workforce, etc.,?

I feel that the more women in a particular working environment, the more likelihood there is to pressure for changes.