Sexism against guys... (2 Viewers)

[Jeee]

Whatever Jacob.

 

[yoddle]

Wow you just shut me down.

I am speechless.

 

[ashie0]

I watched the video of Germaine Greer speaking at 'The Festival of Dangerous Ideas' and oh god she was brilliant.

 

[yoddle]

I watched the video of Germaine Greer speaking at 'The Festival of Dangerous Ideas' and oh god she was brilliant.

Front row

 

[Jeee]

i reckon men and women are fairly eqaul in todays society. although i believe men get the "rough end of the stick" when he comes to divorce, where they often end up worse than the woman. Only sexist thing ive seen towards males is that speeding ad, "no-one thinks big of you" where all the drivers speeding were males. but other than that men and woman have fairly eqaul rights in society lol

The commercial was probably specifically aimed at young men since stats show that the majority of accidents caused by young people are by males - cbb finding a link. Hmm, guys and their fast doof doof cars, not surprised.

I like GG, but I don't like it when intellectuals exaggerate or blow things out of proportion, it weakens their credibility i.e. the word c!@#. Get over it already mang. The fact that women still get paid less than men > who the word cvnt offends.

 

[loquasagacious]

The world needs babies? I refer to the film Children of Men. Also business needs consumers? Government needs taxpayers? Do we really need to spell this out?
I get this dark feeling that you would suggest outsourcing 'birth' to the third world m8

It does. But when did it become the job of business to support this? Should company reports include the number of employees who had a baby in the last financial year?

Because she has a human being growing inside of her. Just the same difference they would see if someone took extended leave because their Dad had died, and i took leave because my big finger was sore. It just is different, and organisations are made of people, and people can tell this difference.

Organisations are businesses. Someone who takes leave for a sore finger is demonstrating absenteeism and the business will look at ways to address the underlying issue (such as low morale) or move to fire the employee.

I have no particular belief that an organisation is anyway morally obliged or should be legally obliged to support an employee mourning the loss of a relative/partner. Generally it is in the financial interests of an organisation to do so though and they will.

Front row

Sore neck?

PS: I was a couple of rows back.

 

[chelsea girl]

There is no 'us and them', there is only 'we'. Such stupid and artificial divisions we weave!
For the most part, arent these policies just seeking to compensate the natural disadvantage women experience in the workplace when they decide to mek bubby? Seems more than fair to me that things are slightly tilted to chicks and i'd probably want some workplace protections for my wife too if she were working while laying my children. Even the single homo should understand that the nation needs new blood to sustain itself. I mean, you either support the idea of women in public and working, or you dont.

Paid maternity leave is a wonderful thing, however I would love to see paid paternity leave considered on an equal footing.

In my view, it should be something more like paid parental leave, in which one of the parents can have paid time off work to look after an infant. It would be lovely if, for example, a gay couple with a child could be afforded the same benefits as heterosexual couples with children.

 

[loquasagacious]

Paid maternity leave is a wonderful thing, however I would love to see paid paternity leave considered on an equal footing.

In my view, it should be something more like paid parental leave, in which one of the parents can have paid time off work to look after an infant. It would be lovely if, for example, a gay couple with a child could be afforded the same benefits as heterosexual couples with children.

Agreed.

 

[yoddle]

It does. But when did it become the job of business to support this? Should company reports include the number of employees who had a baby in the last financial year?

Organisations are businesses. Someone who takes leave for a sore finger is demonstrating absenteeism and the business will look at ways to address the underlying issue (such as low morale) or move to fire the employee.

I have no particular belief that an organisation is anyway morally obliged or should be legally obliged to support an employee mourning the loss of a relative/partner. Generally it is in the financial interests of an organisation to do so though and they will.

Your face is a business.

Sore neck?

PS: I was a couple of rows back.

Were you sitting near the dykes?
No sore crotch though.

 

[loquasagacious]

Life is a business.

Can't remember who I was sitting near for this one. Bunch of old people I think.. idk...

 

[chelsea girl]

That audience was pretty much made up of middle-ages women and wankers who are probably Sydney Uni Arts students that take Gender Studies and Anthropology.

We were sitting near a trio of them. They were wanking on about nothing, doing the faux-thoughtful thing.

 

[Iron]

It does. But when did it become the job of business to support this?

When it was decided that women are roughly equal to men in moral worth? When women got the vote? When it became culturally acceptable and even assumed that women will pursue a career before they pursue motherhood?

But I agree that government should pick up the bulk of paid maternity leave, as it does in the UK etc. Though my personal view is that marriage/birth usually requires a fair bit of sacrifice for both adults. This may mean that the family is best served if the wife devotes herself full time to its maintenance. It might also mean that the husband has to abandon his 'dream job' and settle for work that is less 'fullfilling'. I'm suspicious of the idea that a perfect marriage can be maintained and perfect childen raised when both parents make a career, with all its promises of rich experiences and great reward, the ultimate goal of their life

 

[loquasagacious]

When it was decided that women are roughly equal to men in moral worth? When women got the vote? When it became culturally acceptable and even assumed that women will pursue a career before they pursue motherhood?

But I agree that government should pick up the bulk of paid maternity leave, as it does in the UK etc. Though my personal view is that marriage/birth usually requires a fair bit of sacrifice for both adults. This may mean that the family is best served if the wife devotes herself full time to its maintenance. It might also mean that the husband has to abandon his 'dream job' and settle for work that is less 'fullfilling'. I'm suspicious of the idea that a perfect marriage can be maintained and perfect childen raised when both parents make a career, with all its promises of rich experiences and great reward, the ultimate goal of their life

Equal worth is rather different to one gender receiving preferential treatment just because they can get knocked up.

I have nothing against mothers taking leave to give birth/raise children but I am concerned with where the cost for this should fall. If businesses are footing the bill then this impacts on profitability because it increases fixed costs but contributes no dollar value to the business. If society supports it then let society pay for it. Via taxes and welfare. Should this maternity leave payment be means/asset tested? Does it become a re-distributive measure?

Then there is the cost in lost skills. A woman who has taken say 5 years leave from a firm is quite simply 5 years behind her former colleagues. They have been developing new skills, gaining more experience, building their networks and being promoted. The woman who has taken maternity leave has if anything gone backwards. She may still have skills but she will be rusty and they may be out of date.

When she comes back to work she will get her old job on her old pay. Her colleagues may be in new jobs with more pay. This is one of the key reasons which men earn more. And for as long as women take extended leave to raise children this will create a gender pay gap.

 

[chelsea girl]

Oh, I think the government should be responsible for paid maternity/paternity leave, in the same way that they compensate people who have time off work for jury service.

Perhaps it could be a lump sum that is the equivalent of X amount of time working full time at the average Australian wage?

 

[Iron]

Equal worth is rather different to one gender receiving preferential treatment just because they can get knocked up.

I have nothing against mothers taking leave to give birth/raise children but I am concerned with where the cost for this should fall. If businesses are footing the bill then this impacts on profitability because it increases fixed costs but contributes no dollar value to the business. If society supports it then let society pay for it. Via taxes and welfare. Should this maternity leave payment be means/asset tested? Does it become a re-distributive measure?

Then there is the cost in lost skills. A woman who has taken say 5 years leave from a firm is quite simply 5 years behind her former colleagues. They have been developing new skills, gaining more experience, building their networks and being promoted. The woman who has taken maternity leave has if anything gone backwards. She may still have skills but she will be rusty and they may be out of date.

When she comes back to work she will get her old job on her old pay. Her colleagues may be in new jobs with more pay. This is one of the key reasons which men earn more. And for as long as women take extended leave to raise children this will create a gender pay gap.

I violently agree and dont necessarily promote the idea of over compensating women for giving birth. They should be able to keep their job (within reason) and be paid (within reason) if/when they decide to make babies. For me, the issue seems to boil down to either seriously accepting women in the workplace or not. It's a matter of justice.

But it seems silly to suggest that modern business with big picture boards have no interest in national birth rates. It's the same deal with climate change - it's actually possible, desirable and (sometimes) ultimately profitable for business to look beyond its own immediate self interest on a few big issues.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

women's cancer research is funded by a deplorable excess.

prostate cancer and all other forms of cancer which (as we saw with my earlier stats) target males more often than females, are left with the spare change of the breat cancer research industry

not saying that breat cancer isn't worthy of the money, it is, but by god it's given a comparatively massive amount of attention

 

[Iron]

women and children first m8-t

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

professor farnsworth once proposed dressing as children so they could escape their titanicesque ship about to plunge into a black hole

i too, propose this idea

will you come forth with your godly support, comrade iron?

 

[John McCain]

Oh, I think the government should be responsible for paid maternity/paternity leave, in the same way that they compensate people who have time off work for jury service.

Perhaps it could be a lump sum that is the equivalent of X amount of time working full time at the average Australian wage?

The difference between maternity and jury service is that the government doesn't force you to get pregnant.

Would you agree that payments like the baby bonus provides incentives for irresponsible behaviour among impressionable bogans?

A decision of the magnitude of having a child should be undertaken with an appreciation of the full financial responsibility involved.

women's cancer research is funded by a deplorable excess.

prostate cancer and all other forms of cancer which (as we saw with my earlier stats) target males more often than females, are left with the spare change of the breat cancer research industry

not saying that breat cancer isn't worthy of the money, it is, but by god it's given a comparatively massive amount of attention

Prostate cancer is very infrequently fatal though. Former heads of the cancer council, other prominent researchers disagree with the current campaign to have all men over a certain age screened.

I for one, based on the medical evidence I've read, will choose never be screened for prostate cancer. If I had prostate cancer, in most circumstances I wouldn't get it operated on.

Breast cancer is just the worst gender specific cancer, there is no real male equivalent.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

fair enough
but my point was more that cancers should be funded according to the fatality rate (hence economix concerns) of the cancer, rather than on an emotional campaign.
consider also that men get cancer more often than women, and compare that to the funding for breast cancer

i haven't really looked at the specifics of the funding - i just think breat cancer gets a little more than its fair share of the money pie