They were almost raped, guys.

[Pyraxis]

Tumbler feminism? You waste your time with Tumblr feminism?   

And yes, it stimulated a good debate.

[odeon]

Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.

Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.

But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.

I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.

I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.

Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.

Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.

There's no equality yet, IMHO.

It is a good way of dodging it. Part of the good reason it was a good way of dodging it, is that I was not talking about Noble laureates and I think it had little to do with management and the connection you wanted to ale I was not seeing. It was me saying "OK so we are talking about management or laureates?"

I personally would never be a politician. I chose not to go down this path. Were I to, I would imagine I have to completely change my values and morality. I would have to build a skill set I do not have and probably become someone that the "me" of today would not have the time of day for.
I could not imagine the concessions I would need to make to move into management. It would not work for me.
I could name many more things too that for a variety of reasons, I would not chose to pursue.
BUT it is worth noting that IF I chose not to and if i am not prepared to play the game, I can not then complain that I was never "let in".
Exams do not have to get easier to take, the students have to learn what to answer, how to answer, and in what format. If they chose not to or not to learn to conform within this, they suffer a consequence.

Sportsmen? Ditto.

People seeking out management opportunities? Yes.

What if the thought of going to schmooze with the big boss after work on a Friday is a bit off in your opinion? What if you place more merit on teamwork than individual competitiveness? What if the thought of monthly golf bores you stupid? What if you do not feel like knifing your fellow managers in the back to earn the favour or to rise on someone else's fall from grace? What if you do not see the workers as a faceless mass of automatons (rather than individuals)? What if you were not ego driven and selfish?

Well I would gauge this all, if not playing the game, at least limiting yourself in success attaining or rising in management. If you think that a woman or two having drinks with an almost exclusive male gathering, after work is going to be something that a lot of women would feel comfortable with doing on a regular basis, I think you may be right. BUT if that is the game and men in the same position would NOT feel uncomfortable, then making a case to change this to suit the party that may be uncomfortable is probably not reasonable.

If the effect of this is to weed out people that will not fit the game and only the most committed, men or women are left to play, then I do no pretend it is gender inequality nor do I suppose it is an inclusive way of doing things. It is simply making it very difficult for all but the people who are prepared to do or cope with all the bullshit to join the upper echelons of management. The elite.

Screw the Elite, I will not get there. But then I would not want a part of it anyhow.

Here's the thing, mate, and correct me if I'm off base here. You build up your argument from a) your workplace, and b) an assumption that the current male-defined hierarchy is the only possible one, the way it must be.

Now, while b) is certainly true now, I very much doubt it is the only possible way. It is the result of thousands of years of biology, psychology, cultural heritage and the bias that will result. And probably more. Some of it was conscious and some of it wasn't. Isn't.

It *might* be evolution at work, too, but that I doubt because it seems counter-productive and not what nature would do if given time.

Does top-level management entail weekly (not monthly; we are talking top level here) golf, schmoozing with the big boss on Fridays, etc? Again, now it might. I very much doubt it must.

And it shouldn't. We'll miss out if so. I am not saying that trading places (or a 50/50 split in management or whatever) is better, I'm saying it's different, and because we are talking about 50% of the population, equality is out of the question if it is not acknowledged and tested. And accepted.

Is equality better? Almost certainly because again, we are talking about 50% of the population, and unless we want to design some bizarre kind of gender apartheid, we need a society that works for all of the population, not just one half of it.

[TA]

Tumbler feminism? You waste your time with Tumblr feminism?   

And yes, it stimulated a good debate.

What's wrong with their brand of feminism?

[Pyraxis]

Tumblr is more conducive to scratching people's eyes out than intelligent discourse.

[RageBeoulve]

Tumblr is more conducive to scratching people's eyes out than intelligent discourse.

Indeed. They're awful people. Or maybe they're still in diapers. I'm not sure which.

[Al Swearegen]

Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.

Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.

But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.

I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.

I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.

Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.

Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.

There's no equality yet, IMHO.

It is a good way of dodging it. Part of the good reason it was a good way of dodging it, is that I was not talking about Noble laureates and I think it had little to do with management and the connection you wanted to ale I was not seeing. It was me saying "OK so we are talking about management or laureates?"

I personally would never be a politician. I chose not to go down this path. Were I to, I would imagine I have to completely change my values and morality. I would have to build a skill set I do not have and probably become someone that the "me" of today would not have the time of day for.
I could not imagine the concessions I would need to make to move into management. It would not work for me.
I could name many more things too that for a variety of reasons, I would not chose to pursue.
BUT it is worth noting that IF I chose not to and if i am not prepared to play the game, I can not then complain that I was never "let in".
Exams do not have to get easier to take, the students have to learn what to answer, how to answer, and in what format. If they chose not to or not to learn to conform within this, they suffer a consequence.

Sportsmen? Ditto.

People seeking out management opportunities? Yes.

What if the thought of going to schmooze with the big boss after work on a Friday is a bit off in your opinion? What if you place more merit on teamwork than individual competitiveness? What if the thought of monthly golf bores you stupid? What if you do not feel like knifing your fellow managers in the back to earn the favour or to rise on someone else's fall from grace? What if you do not see the workers as a faceless mass of automatons (rather than individuals)? What if you were not ego driven and selfish?

Well I would gauge this all, if not playing the game, at least limiting yourself in success attaining or rising in management. If you think that a woman or two having drinks with an almost exclusive male gathering, after work is going to be something that a lot of women would feel comfortable with doing on a regular basis, I think you may be right. BUT if that is the game and men in the same position would NOT feel uncomfortable, then making a case to change this to suit the party that may be uncomfortable is probably not reasonable.

If the effect of this is to weed out people that will not fit the game and only the most committed, men or women are left to play, then I do no pretend it is gender inequality nor do I suppose it is an inclusive way of doing things. It is simply making it very difficult for all but the people who are prepared to do or cope with all the bullshit to join the upper echelons of management. The elite.

Screw the Elite, I will not get there. But then I would not want a part of it anyhow.

Here's the thing, mate, and correct me if I'm off base here. You build up your argument from a) your workplace, and b) an assumption that the current male-defined hierarchy is the only possible one, the way it must be.

Now, while b) is certainly true now, I very much doubt it is the only possible way. It is the result of thousands of years of biology, psychology, cultural heritage and the bias that will result. And probably more. Some of it was conscious and some of it wasn't. Isn't.

It *might* be evolution at work, too, but that I doubt because it seems counter-productive and not what nature would do if given time.

Does top-level management entail weekly (not monthly; we are talking top level here) golf, schmoozing with the big boss on Fridays, etc? Again, now it might. I very much doubt it must.

And it shouldn't. We'll miss out if so. I am not saying that trading places (or a 50/50 split in management or whatever) is better, I'm saying it's different, and because we are talking about 50% of the population, equality is out of the question if it is not acknowledged and tested. And accepted.

Is equality better? Almost certainly because again, we are talking about 50% of the population, and unless we want to design some bizarre kind of gender apartheid, we need a society that works for all of the population, not just one half of it.

Not quite. I am saying that the "inequalities" so readily embraced are often not actual "inequalities of gender" at all. It is very easy to agree on these things, without thinking through, especially if it "feels" right.

Things like women not having as much superannuation on average, yet when it is asked why, it normally comes down to a choice of jobs they have sought employment in OR having spent long periods of time out of the workplace.

Is this inequality of genders or is this a lot of women with the same choices as men, deciding (or choosing) to make choices that may sacrifice the benefit of superannuation.

Some women choose to stay home and be at home Mums. No problem with this. It is a choice, BUT then to use this in figure to make some ill-thought out subjective proclamation about men earning more than women or whatever, is a little bit more than a little dishonest.
 
Now to counter this the word "Patriarchy" is often throne around and also sometimes efforts to talk about innate bias or subconscious or societal driven expectations or imperatives. I think this is mostly just pseudo-psychology and intellectual dishonesty.

If a woman wants to be an X and has the skill set, determination and whatever, I do not believe that she can not do it, in today's society....now.
If a woman doing this just do so with some sacrifices and by an amount of game playing, then so be it. Men do too.

If a man in order to get on has to put his social life on the back burner, work his guts out (in demanding work), ingratiate himself with the boss, work overtime and weekends. Be  available to attend work functions when need requires and so on. Until he has successfully made it (if he has not burned out in the meantime) then I say he has deserved it.

If a woman does the same at expense of her life and so on too. Then she too will no doubt have the same opportunities as the bloke.

I remember when my first child was born. One of the mothers that attended the hospital with us, Pam, was 40 years old and first time mother. She was a Partner at a Law Firm. In the time where many of her peers were dropping out of wrk or downgrading their positions to less demanding or part time work, she worked her way up. Finally when she was made a partner, she looked to become a mother. She was financially well off and able to dictate her life from here on......but she was worried she had (unlike her peers) left her run too late to have kids.

Now you may say that it is unfair that someone like Pam ought to feel she had no option but to either choose to postpone kids or risk rising through the ranks in her late 20's and 30's. I would say that regardless, that does not mean it is gender inequality because men are not really considered in terms of time off for their children.

I remember another girl working who decided after a few monte to pull the pin and go home and look after the baby. She one time in tears said "You don't know how I feel each day knowing that I have to work while he is so little and not able to stay at home with him and see him during the day". I told her I did because I felt that with both my children at that age and no doubt her husband did too, just I did not get a choice and neither would he. She looked at me like i simply did not get it.

As I say gender difference is not necessarily inequality of gender or bias or anything else. Choices often come with sacrifices. Experiences the effect of choices and the sting of the sacrifices made is not unfair. If you choice x to avoid y and z is an effect of not doing y, then you do not say I should get the benefits of y whilst doing x and without the disadvantage of z because z is unfair. Life does not work like that and to say people that do y are being favoured is dishonest.

[odeon]

Not quite. I am saying that the "inequalities" so readily embraced are often not actual "inequalities of gender" at all. It is very easy to agree on these things, without thinking through, especially if it "feels" right.

Ah, but the "inequality" I refer to is simply an imbalance. I think you'll agree that the world, career-wise as far as climbing the work ladder goes, is better suited for males, simply because they will not give birth or support an infant through the first few months or years at home. This is a basic imbalance when related to how society works. Career-wise.

Now, you may say that it's a choice, but I'd suggest that it really isn't. It is a biological drive with both sexes. Am I screaming "patriarchy" or "male chauvinism" or "sausage fest"? No, I'm simply stating the facts.

Men and women are different but the differences are not all accounted for, creating inequalities and, yes, injustices.

Not saying that this was all by conscious design, simply claiming that it is what it is.

There are all kinds of resulting injustices from this basic natural order of things, that child birth thing, and they come in many shapes and forms. A very obvious one is, I think, the voting rights of women. Democracy may have been around for a while but equal voting rights haven't, just to offer a simple example.

Things like women not having as much superannuation on average, yet when it is asked why, it normally comes down to a choice of jobs they have sought employment in OR having spent long periods of time out of the workplace.

This is what the setup looks like, yes. Does it have to be like that? No.

Is this inequality of genders or is this a lot of women with the same choices as men, deciding (or choosing) to make choices that may sacrifice the benefit of superannuation.

On the surface, this is a choice, but I would argue that it really isn't. It is an imbalance that is yet to be corrected.

Think about it: the only way a female can make a proper career with the current setup is to waive her offspring, and to convince her spouse that he won't have any. The drive to reproduce is strong with both sexes but the consequences for doing so are very different for them.

I think career ambitions also stem from a basic human drive, but the drive to reproduce wins out. It's how we survive as a race.

This basic difference, however, is not accounted for. It's not built into the system yet, but I think it should because I firmly believe we'd all benefit. I don't know how, though.

Men and women are not the same, but they should have equal rights.

Some women choose to stay home and be at home Mums. No problem with this. It is a choice, BUT then to use this in figure to make some ill-thought out subjective proclamation about men earning more than women or whatever, is a little bit more than a little dishonest.
 
Now to counter this the word "Patriarchy" is often throne around and also sometimes efforts to talk about innate bias or subconscious or societal driven expectations or imperatives. I think this is mostly just pseudo-psychology and intellectual dishonesty.

And I agree. It's a reaction, just as militant feminism in general is, and while not the way to bring about a change, the fact that it happens is important because, to me, it says that something just isn't right.

If a woman wants to be an X and has the skill set, determination and whatever, I do not believe that she can not do it, in today's society....now.
If a woman doing this just do so with some sacrifices and by an amount of game playing, then so be it. Men do too.

If a man in order to get on has to put his social life on the back burner, work his guts out (in demanding work), ingratiate himself with the boss, work overtime and weekends. Be  available to attend work functions when need requires and so on. Until he has successfully made it (if he has not burned out in the meantime) then I say he has deserved it.

And I say this almost never works. It may bring a promotion but I believe studies show that overtime does not equal efficiency or better results. That particular system is flawed for entirely different reasons.

If a woman does the same at expense of her life and so on too. Then she too will no doubt have the same opportunities as the bloke.

Burn out at the expense of everything else?

I think this is something that should be changed, for everyone's sake.

I remember when my first child was born. One of the mothers that attended the hospital with us, Pam, was 40 years old and first time mother. She was a Partner at a Law Firm. In the time where many of her peers were dropping out of wrk or downgrading their positions to less demanding or part time work, she worked her way up. Finally when she was made a partner, she looked to become a mother. She was financially well off and able to dictate her life from here on......but she was worried she had (unlike her peers) left her run too late to have kids.

Now you may say that it is unfair that someone like Pam ought to feel she had no option but to either choose to postpone kids or risk rising through the ranks in her late 20's and 30's. I would say that regardless, that does not mean it is gender inequality because men are not really considered in terms of time off for their children.

But it is an inequality, an imbalance. It is a simple fact. See my initial reasoning above.

If Pa's only way to make a career is to wait with all that baby nonsense until she's already a partner, at 40, it will hurt both her, her spouse, and the poor kid. And thus, society.

There should be a better way.

I remember another girl working who decided after a few monte to pull the pin and go home and look after the baby. She one time in tears said "You don't know how I feel each day knowing that I have to work while he is so little and not able to stay at home with him and see him during the day". I told her I did because I felt that with both my children at that age and no doubt her husband did too, just I did not get a choice and neither would he. She looked at me like i simply did not get it.

As I say gender difference is not necessarily inequality of gender or bias or anything else. Choices often come with sacrifices. Experiences the effect of choices and the sting of the sacrifices made is not unfair. If you choice x to avoid y and z is an effect of not doing y, then you do not say I should get the benefits of y whilst doing x and without the disadvantage of z because z is unfair. Life does not work like that and to say people that do y are being favoured is dishonest.

To not account for basic human biology when building a society will create imbalances. Those imbalances are likely to boost whatever bias there was. It is a vicious circle. And again, I'm not saying it's all conscious or a sausage fest or anything, I'm simply saying it is happening.

To shrug it all off by saying that life just doesn't work like that is counter-productive. It won't help, but it might well hurt.

[Al Swearegen]

Odeon, thanks for the reply.
I think you are not correct and I will tell you why. You have stated about biology and imbalance and so on as though they slot very neatly into the equation and that they cover each of these issues. It is not this simply or clean cut.
A women gets pregnant and has a baby. How much time is she out of the workplace for? How long is a piece of string?
If we looked sat this like it was NOT a childbirth and treated it like a major operation that a man may take. What is the "necessary time to take out? Couple of weeks? Some women do too.
If it was imperative that she was to rerun to work asap, then I have no doubt this "could" be done.
Maybe her partner would have to stay at home, may she would have a relative, friend or day care look after the infant. Does happen. Maybe they take annual leave.
IF this were the case it would not in any meaningful way impact on her job nor present "imbalance" nor would it affect superannuation nor job prospects.
So saying "biology" as a coverall does not really address things, nor does stating imbalance. In fact I would presume the manager with extended time off for health issues would be in a far wore position in terms of getting on in the office, than the manager who gave birth to a baby.
Whilst it does certainly happen, it is a pretty tough road. No it is a sacrifice and a choice. Many refuse to make. If her and her partner (presuming there is one) want the baby to spend a couple of years being raised not be grandmothers or strangers, then it means that there is another sacrifice. That is, the financial sacrifice and employment sacrifice option. Now that too is a choice. Mostly if it is a man and woman situation and they thing that at best, they could handle a single income household, it is normally put on the man to bring in the bacon. That is another choice. Need not necessarily be the man.
So if a woman decides to have a baby. If she decides that once the baby is born she will take a lot of time out of the workplace. If she decides that she will be the part of the couple that stays at home, it sounds to me that a lot of choices have been made and it is made rationally and she must be obliged to the same extent as her partner who has been obliged as the breadwinner for a family of three. If she does not like the choices or the consequence of said choices, then she ought to make different ones.
Now you may argue that it is unfair. You may say "Well the mother should get to spend a few years with the kids growing up because they are little and need their parent." I would say "In that case then you make a great case for both parents dropping out and spending time raising them.
Would not go so well with a "imbalance" argument but I think it is a fair comment.
If the man is the one that goes back to work and has a few days off and gets back into it and the female does not, then unless there is a serious health issue to factor, I say the imbalance of the man to women is being looked at incorrectly.

[Pyraxis]

In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.

[RageBeoulve]

In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.

Is that really something to do with male domination, or just shitty logistics?

[Pyraxis]

I think it's anti-male-domination. Like a progressive move. Isn't it harder in other places to get equal paternity leave?

[odeon]

Odeon, thanks for the reply.

Why, thank *you*. It's always fun arguing with you.

I think you are not correct and I will tell you why. You have stated about biology and imbalance and so on as though they slot very neatly into the equation and that they cover each of these issues. It is not this simply or clean cut.

On this we agree. It is not that clean-cut. Biology is an important cause but not the only one. Biology, IMHO, will go a long way towards explaining why it all came about but it's far from the only reason.

I hope I didn't imply that it was.

A women gets pregnant and has a baby. How much time is she out of the workplace for?

These days? Not that much. For centuries, though, she did not have a workplace other than home, so maternity leave wasn't an option.

How long is a piece of string?

Now, that depends on what it's used for.

If we looked sat this like it was NOT a childbirth and treated it like a major operation that a man may take. What is the "necessary time to take out? Couple of weeks? Some women do too.

But it's not the same. It can be very much like a major operation and one that a man may take, but the difference is that it is not a disease, it is the result of a basic biological drive that exists in both sexes. So unless you wish to argue that you have a few hundred thousand years of evolution pushing at the man and woman both for the man to take that operation and a couple of weeks off as a result, and with lasting effects for them both, your basic argument is flawed.

Now, if that major operation had been an undeniable fact for the last few thousand years--all of the recorded history, in fact, and more--and if it had caused the men to have stayed back in the cave while them men went out hunting, I might indulge you with this, but it just isn't so.

If it was imperative that she was to rerun to work asap, then I have no doubt this "could" be done.

It is done. More in the so-called Western world than elsewhere, probably, but it has only been possible in recent times.

Maybe her partner would have to stay at home, may she would have a relative, friend or day care look after the infant. Does happen. Maybe they take annual leave.

But then again, maybe not, because an annual leave isn't always an option and quite a few workplaces here, at least, will use that opportunity to, um, shall we say, rearrange the workplace.

But sure, it does happen. Your point?

IF this were the case it would not in any meaningful way impact on her job nor present "imbalance" nor would it affect superannuation nor job prospects.

But it does. Here at least. It's not the same everywhere, but a parental leave tends to affect the female more than the male. It has been the subject of a number of heated discussions and, in some cases, lawsuits. It happens.

There are many reasons to why it happens, and I think that basic biological fact has helped contribute to it.

So saying "biology" as a coverall does not really address things, nor does stating imbalance. In fact I would presume the manager with extended time off for health issues would be in a far wore position in terms of getting on in the office, than the manager who gave birth to a baby.

Actually, the manager will be in a far better position, generally speaking, but yes, health issues, especially prolonged ones, tend to harm career prospects. I can think of several such cases here.

But it's not a counter-argument, is it? It is a different issue and worth discussing separately. The basic issue at hand is NOT a health issue.

Whilst it does certainly happen, it is a pretty tough road. No it is a sacrifice and a choice. Many refuse to make. If her and her partner (presuming there is one) want the baby to spend a couple of years being raised not be grandmothers or strangers, then it means that there is another sacrifice. That is, the financial sacrifice and employment sacrifice option. Now that too is a choice. Mostly if it is a man and woman situation and they thing that at best, they could handle a single income household, it is normally put on the man to bring in the bacon. That is another choice. Need not necessarily be the man.
So if a woman decides to have a baby. If she decides that once the baby is born she will take a lot of time out of the workplace. If she decides that she will be the part of the couple that stays at home, it sounds to me that a lot of choices have been made and it is made rationally and she must be obliged to the same extent as her partner who has been obliged as the breadwinner for a family of three. If she does not like the choices or the consequence of said choices, then she ought to make different ones.

If the consequences were the same for both parties, I might agree with you, but they aren't. They should be.

Now you may argue that it is unfair. You may say "Well the mother should get to spend a few years with the kids growing up because they are little and need their parent." I would say "In that case then you make a great case for both parents dropping out and spending time raising them.

I'm not arguing unfairness, I'm arguing basic biological differences and imbalances because of those differences that shouldn't have to be there. I'm not sure why you avoid that part of the discussion. I think both parents should be allowed to spend more time with their offspring without ill effects in the workplace.

Would not go so well with a "imbalance" argument but I think it is a fair comment.
If the man is the one that goes back to work and has a few days off and gets back into it and the female does not, then unless there is a serious health issue to factor, I say the imbalance of the man to women is being looked at incorrectly.

And it is. But we are repeating ourselves and I don't know if I'm expressing myself poorly.

I'll make another attempt at this later. Right now I have to head for work.

[Al Swearegen]

It seems to me that we are not so much arguing the same points but rather miscuing. I certain think that your viewpoint from what I understand is slightly opposed to mine but I feel we are slightly mussing each other in the exchange.

I will start with these mentions of "recent times".

In days of old, women did not work, men did. In fact men had to. The reason was not about inequality. Nor was it to "dominate" women.
The reason WAS biological. Women, simply were too valuable to risk. The chances of surviving childbirth were not crash hot. Those that did, wanted to have a few children survive them to help look after them in old age and reach childbearing age themselves. Therefore child after child was born and IF they survived this ordeal, they would have spent most of their adult life by the time they were unable to bear children, either nursing or pregnant. In the meantime"someone" had to provide for the family. Men needed to support this and so they were given the right to work BECAUSE they had the obligation to carry out such duties. The women did not have the obligation to provide for the family and so did not have the rights associated with the obligation.

It was only "recent times" that infant mortality and death in child birthing has substantially reduced.

To keep bring up "only in recent times" in ways to suggest that the women were "held back" or "disadvantaged" is simply not true representation. It is not at all to say that once these things "stabilised" that men eagerly embraced women's wish to be workers in society. No this was a complete culture shift. Right up there with the shift from Stone Age to Bronze Age or Bronze to Iron Age.

Considering the significant change, how long did it take for society to endorse women's right to work? 500 years? 200? 100? 50?

The other thing is of course, men as the provider is still a societal pressure. If men and women split, invariably it is the Father forced to support any of his children and often the new partner too. (Often with Government support by way of pensions) So he keeps the obligation of the provider.
Is the woman in joining into this once male domain similarly obligated to provide for the family? Perhaps instead of the onus falling on her, the government and the ex partner and perhaps any new partner is obligated instead.

By contrast, is the man now given more credibility in the old female domain of nurturing and growing up the kids?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255

Believe me, when we get to the stage where we are THAT far  down the rabbit hole that we are saying "Where are all the male role models?" we REALLY have to take a look at the system and ask whether or not the Fathers are all bad or whether the mothers find it all too easy to minimise, marginalise and supplant the Father's role in nurturing an raising children in their way (which is absolutely not necessarily the Mother's way) and whether society debases the Masculine and the Father and uses them to be obligated for cash towards children but with unequal access and rights as a parent? Certainly looks that way. In fact looks like a verifiable imbalance.

The fact of the matter is that men do not go through childbirth (no hear me out), so I can not directly compare women giving birth to men given birth. It is not a given that IF we can not compare this exactly condition/experience/situation to a man's, that any conclusions we can draw from looking at time off from work is horribly flawed and not cogent.

I am not trying to directly compare a prolonged illness or operation or such with childbirth and give merits as to the ways they directly compare as physical experiences. My attempt to mention this was also not a moral comparison or a matter of looking at the way that such conditions or experience may affect  life.

It was simply to say, if you are on top of your game in the workplace and know your job inside out and the procedures, policies and processes and the who's who and what's what, a small break from work will not hurt you ably in this regard. You may read a few emails have a quick fill in, and ask a few questions. You are not quite up to date but close enough. Out of the loop for a year? Now this would be akin to being employed to a new firm in the same field almost. You MAY be able to get on top of things of course but it will not be easy AND the people who you left a year ago have an extra year's earth of knowledge over you and extra year of perhaps exposing themselves to a vacuum left by your departure.

Now If a man was to take two weeks off or even four weeks off with annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, or whatever this i negligible effect or career or his saved super or his understanding of the company as stated above.

If woman was to tae this kind of time off to have a child...same deal.

If a man was to be long term sick and was introduced back into the workplace he would be in foreign territory for al the reasons I have just shown.

Ditto if a lady returns to work a year after having given birth.

The difficulties are not unnatural or unfair or needing to be adjusted. Whether it should be up to one parent to stay hime or both or neither, that is not unfair choice or disadvantaged to either sex. It is certainly a decision that ought to be made before having children. One percent working to provide for children is no less fair on them than what it is to the parent staying at home, regardless of gender.

I am hoping that these comments can get us actually to duel over viewpoints. Again I think we are miscuing.

[RageBeoulve]

I think it's anti-male-domination. Like a progressive move. Isn't it harder in other places to get equal paternity leave?

No no I mean unequal leave for the birth of a baby in other workplaces. (Lol sorry. Forgot you couldn't read my mind, there.) Would that be a product of a conscious effort on part of modern males to dominate females, or just a carryover from a dead set of values dreamed up by doddering old fools which still exists because of laziness on part of modern folk?

Itt: Shitty Logistics, Lazy leadership.

[Al Swearegen]

*Bump*