The British Chambers of Commerce has warned that changes to paternity leave and retirement rights introduced this week will damage the start of the UK recovery. From yesterday British men will get up to six months paternity leave, if their partners return to work early. And from Wednesday the default retirement age is retired. …
Queue Subtle Discrimination for workers of Childbearing age
I know this is wrong but this might have the effect of making biz in general value those whoose children have fled the nest. i.e. the over 50's.
In other news, more people in their 50's will be made redundant as the Public Service cuts start to hurt.
Perhaps they are wrong here?
No, because it won't be possible to 'ease them out' as there is no mandatory retirement age...
"Queue" - a line of people...
... "Cue": In this context a signal that something is due to or going to start now.
This isn't a good thing.
Men won't want to be at home mothering the babies, men want to be at work providing for their family. Likewise, Mothers won't want to spend all day at work away from their newborn, they want to be at home mothering them. It's only human.
I'm lucky to have a wife that can actually see through all this bullshit and do what she instinctually feels is right and is best for our kids. I see parents that go against their natural instincts and become frustrated as they bow to this increasing social pressure of "Mothers drop the kids and get back to work" and to do the opposite of what they *know* they should be doing, they usually take it out on each other.
re: Happy now?
The law should only reflect the needs of stereotypes, and force that view onto everybody else?
So what if some men don't want to be at home with their kids? That's no excuse for denying the option to those that do.
RE: re: Happy now
"The law should only reflect the needs of stereotypes, and force that view onto everybody else?"
I said it wasn't a good thing, I didn't say the law shouldn't be fair.
Farthers and Mothers can now choose which one of them will mother their newborn, that freedom of choice is a good thing, I suppose. The bad thing I refer to is the increasing pressure on mothers to abandon their babies and get back to the office when they need each other the most. That is a bad thing.
I assume you talk from a point of view that has a strong grounding in the idealistic promotion of equality rather than one based on experience?
Just stop talking. Simply using the term "mothering" to denote "caring for, nurturing and raising one's child" demonstrates your backwards and irrelevant viewpoint. The term is "parenting." Both parents bear the responsibility, and both parents can perform the duty equally well.
For that matter, you make some pretty goddamned big assumptions. Like there being two parents of opposing genders involved in the relationship. The female parent can die during childbirth. Either or both female parent in a dual-female relationship can bear children. A dual-male relationship may adopt a child, or engage the services of a surrogate mother in order that one (or both) of them may achieve genetic propagation.
For that matter, the “female” in the relationship may not have been born with two X chromosomes, nor the male born XY.
The gender of the parent – at birth, currently, or in the future – is no more the business of the state than is the union of which genders in which order. Certainly which gender is expected to perform which parental duties for which time period is not the business of the state.
A /FAMILY/ should get X number of days parental leave per newborn. It is then up to that FAMILY – and noone else – to determine who will take the days of parental leave and who will work.
Who the flaming nether fucking hell gives you – or anyone else – the right to pass judgement on which arrangements are “good” and which are “bad?”
Save your liberalist horsecrap.
It's called "mothering" for a reason.
Is that now a taboo word? Mothering is dead? Do now we have to say "parenting" to fit in with the new politically correct viewpoint?
Parenting and mothering are not the same thing. Are you a Father, Mother or just a parent? Bonds need to form between Mother and child at an early age, it takes time. Applying social pressure for the mother to go back to work at 6 months is not a good thing for the child or the mother.
Perhaps your aggressive nature, name calling and inability to discuss in a civialised manner is an indication that this may be a bit too close to your own personal circumstance for you to handle. Don't take it out on me, you make your own choices, at least we agree on that (if you had read my posts properly you would have realised that).
Yes, it's called "mothering" because back in the day (when religious nutjobs ran the world) women had no rights and were forced to stay at home with the children. It is indeed dead. It's an outdated concept from an outdated time, best forgotten.
I see no social pressure whatsoever for either parent to go back to work after six months. What I see is the state finally acknowledging that folk with archaic viewpoints needn't make any decisions or judgement calls whatsoever on who takes what length of parental leave. If any given parent wants to take the full leave, there is nothing stopping them, no pressure to do otherwise. Where you get “more options = pressure” from is only your own prejudices.
As for my “liberalist horsecrap,” no, I won’t save it. If you don’t like it, you have every option not to read these forums. You are wrong, your viewpoint is wrong, your opinions are wrong and I’m calling you on it. If you don’t like it, too bad.
"You are wrong, your viewpoint is wrong, your opinions are wrong and I’m calling you on it. If you don’t like it, too bad."
You know, one thing liberalist nut jobs always end up doing? They always end up shouting repeatedly at someone that they are wrong, their opinion is wrong, their stance is invalid and they are archaic because someone disagrees with them.
Mothering a baby is a concept best forgotten? Am I reading this correctly? How were you brought up?
"I see no social pressure whatsoever for either parent to go back to work after six months."
You will do, you will see mothers going back to work because that's what they think they are supposed to do. You will see fathers taking 6 months off work because they think their wife needs to get back to the office. They will do this because liberalist nut jobs with no regard for the family’s emotional well being and who care only about pushing a policy of "equality" tell them that it's the right thing to do, and if they disagree, liberalists shout and scream and tell them they are wrong, this might not happen to them personally, but they will however see it on TV and represented in the popular media.
However, people are becoming wise to this kind of bullshit and it's your opinion that is in the minority. But as a liberalist, I assume you think you know better than everyone else. Feel free to do some more shouting.
I live in a country that has had PARENTAL leave - without restrictions on gender - for ages. It works fine.
You are the one who is completely out of whack if you honestly believe that it makes a difference which gender rears the child for the first year. Either gender can do the job, only your own prejudices say otherwise. More to the point, it isn't up to you to tell others how to rear their children, nor live their lives.
You are deeply embedded in the "slippery slope" logical fallacy here. Giving people CHOICE - which parent of which gender serves which time rearing the child - does not automatically correlate with any form of increased pressure for either parent of any gender to do sweet juicy fuck all with their time that they do not want to.
I live in a country where this concept has been applied with no negative social consequences whatsoever. Mine is not the only country in which this social change has occurred and the sky didn’t abruptly fall. Thus there is actual evidence to back up my claims.
You are spouting propaganda based not on any facts but only on your own narrow minded prejudices. Well I am sorry to inform you of this, Bub, but reality has a well known “liberal” bias. The real world doesn’t give a sweet floating bucket of bitrot what you think, or care about, or whine about or what the preacher man tells you the sky-fairy wants you to believe. Reality just keeps on ticking regardless, and in reality, there is absolutely no evidence to support anything you are saying.
There is quite a bit, however, proving you wrong.
You can call me a “liberal” (as though that were somehow an invective) or whatever else you wish. The truth is, I’m a rationalist. I look for evidence, and then judge the world based upon it. When new evidence emerges, I have this remarkable ability to CHANGE MY VIEWS by ADMITTING I AM WRONG. Its part of this thing we call “science.” You know, where falsification is an important concept, statistical analysis and empirical observation trump generations of prejudice and One Man’s Gut Feeling.
If you want to know why I am so damned ornery here it’s because folk like you make me ashamed to share the same base elements in my DNA. It’s not just that you make me ashamed to be a member of the same subspecies as you, but even to share the same biochemistry! The internet – and sadly the world – is full of folks like this: ready to impose their prejudices on others without any evidence whatsoever to back them up.
Resist change! Resist knowledge! Resist anything that doesn’t glorify the poster’s prejudices!
Well I’m deeply (and by deeply I mean NOT AT ALL) sorry about this, but…
I’m fed up with it. I am sick to death of wilfully ignorant people. I am not going to play pussy-foot nice-nice with utter whackjobs any more. I know the moderatrix says play nice. I know that rationalists are supposed to pretend to be passive so we can get walked on by frothing fundementalists. Too bad.
You claim that
A) The mother is more critical to rearing a child during formative years than a father.
B) Parental as opposed to Maternal leave pressure mothers to take less leave.
C) Non-traditional families are “liberal horseshit” and shouldn’t be considered.
Well, [CITATION NEEDED], troll. Post your bloody evidence or get off the damned internets.
"The real world doesn’t give a sweet floating bucket of bitrot what you think, or care about, or whine about or what the preacher man tells you the sky-fairy wants you to believe"
This might come as a huge surprise to you and despite your apparent arrogance, although I think more likely, naivety, you might find it shocking to discover that you do not represent the entire world and all those that live on it.
Although, it does expose your elitist mindset that if I don't share your view then I don't live in the “real world” and therefore my opinion is invalid and can be the subject of much name calling and ridicule by yourself. There's a word for that, I think it's snobbery. Not nice. But it does fit in nicely with your typical liberalist mindset. Rationalist? Really? Why don't you try being rational.
Please, once you get down from your self-righteous, moral high horse and manage to stop frothing at the mouth demanding that I get off the internet because I have the audacity to hold a point of view that differs from your own. Maybe then we could talk.
You think I'm a troll? Maybe you should look in the mirror.
In other words, you have zero proof to back up your chest-thumping prejudices. All your hemming and hawing and you haven't a leg to stand on except being loud. Thought so!
Ignorance is strength. Can I get a praise Jeebus?
As to me being a troll, YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I AM. I'm sick of stupid misinformed people strutting about the internet pushing their ignorance in everyone's faces as though they were "knowledge." I’ve tried for years to calmly explain reality, present facts and otherwise play the role expects of a rational individual.
Nah, screw that noise! If you can be a gigantic douche whilst spewing around misinformation, prejudice, fear and media manufactured controversies then I demand the same rights. When I have empirical evidence large enough to constitute entire countries implementing policies successfully that prove everything you are saying is complete bullshit, I am going to have my churro around and behave boorishly.
It’s fun. It’s cathartic. I get to piss you off, not give a sweet buttered crumpet what you think of me and still am correct! I won’t hide that. I won’t be meek and unassuming and “let you have your say.” Why? Where’s the fun in that? How does quietly standing aside whilst misinformation, ignorance, prejudice and fear are spread advance society, make the world a better place or give me a warm fuzzy feeling?
Now don’t get me wrong, pointing out the flaws in your argument by being a gigantic ball-waving douche doesn’t help the world either, but I’m smiling and having a good time. So the world is a slightly better place than it was before.
So hey, let’s troll then buddy. You be the twit, I’ll be the twat and with our powers combined we’ll keep the internet held together.
How can paternity leave cost more?
Hang on: this legislation merely makes it so that father and mother can share parental leave, it doesn't increase it. So unless they were discriminating against women before, this won't make any difference, no?
RE: How can paternity leave cost more?
Ah, so I'm not the only one who see's through the BS ! It seems that employers are quick to complain that it gives blokes the right to more time off, but quietly ignore the fact that this time off is balanced by women having less. So overall there will be less time off work per child, but it will affect different employers.
I suspect that it won't have as dramatic an effect as some people suggest anyway. Hard economics suggest that in many families, it will still be the (sweeping generalisation) lower paid woman that will have most of the time off, allowing the (sweeping generalisation) higher paid man to keep earning his regular pay.
What is needed is some reform of the rules. At present it's possible for a woman to take (IIRC) a full year off work during which the employer *MUST* keep the job open for her. After that time, the woman can decide not to go back to work. This is a big hit for smaller businesses - they cannot employ a permanent replacement, a temporary worker will cost more (and still need training), or they can let the other staff pickup the workload (not really fair on the other staff).
The glass cellar
"women had no rights and were forced to stay at home with the children"
Yeah, it sure beats going down the mine and end up dying of pneumoconiosis while the coal board drags its feet on compensation that might have made my grandfather live longer, or in less pain. Or maybe it would have been more equal like my great-great grandmother and the kids down the mine along with the men? As to the company store - it was (economic) slavery. No wonder the miners had such a radical outlook after such exploitation (though it was transmuted into greed later by certain union leaders with political rather than humanitarian agendas).
Stop with the divide and conquer mentality promoting your own kind of sexism, we all live different lives, and the best thing we can do is to help others achieve, or at least try, whatever we want to do without getting caught in the traps of poverty and ignorance, or stomping on each other like rats in a trap.
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad