Daughter Water [Gender Pay Inequality]

[quote=Jimmydoggga 2.0]Hiring an older woman instead of a younger woman because the older one is less likely to be pregnant is perfectly fine. And hiring a man over a woman who may want to become pregnant is perfectly fine, as is asking the woman in the job interview if she wants to become pregnant and asking the man if he intends to be a father in the next few years. But it cannot be assumed men make the choices on who to hire based entirely on pregnancy, as Koksei summed up perfectly a few posts back. Which is why the mentioned fundraiser exists.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]Mej: I was intending all along to use the discussion as a basis for one of my classes. I stated in the original post that one of my business classes is learning about employment obligations/rights. My post earlier was my way of asking permission, lol :P If anyone doesn't want their views shared with my class of year 11s, simply say. Otherwise this is a public forum and standard forum rules apply (not to mention this is hosted on the Internet, so available to anyone who wants to read it anyway...). I'm teaching information privacy/protection to my other class, so I might start a thread related to that sooner or later (though we've already had a lot of deep conversation regarding The Fappening and Heartbleed, so I've planned more theory stuff). Thanks for contributing :) Searz: Something I didn't get a chance to mention before is the difference between equality and equity. Some people seem to think that I'm all for "equality". I'm not. I'm for equity. [img=http://www.portlandoregon.gov/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=449546][/quote]

[quote=sirell]Knowing Jhoi, she'll misrepresent everything anyway. She literally misread everything I wrote and/or understood it in a way which she deemed appropriate (or inappropriate, in this case). YOU were feeling the heat? You were the one who was shooting flameballs from the start (and a fair few of them in one go!). If you're thanking Maw for telling people to tone the insults down, please pause and take a good look at yourself before shutting up. If you're going to use the comments from this 'discussion' to teach your class, then I hope you include the posts where you said my viewpoints were 'old-fashioned, misogynistic, whatever, whatever'. I'm sure the kids will learn greatly about equality from a wonderful role model like you, kappa. But I would almost be willing to place money that she'd do a lot of editing on her own behalf. Incidentally, this is an extremely poor way to teach children on employment rights/obligations.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]? This is the document I'm printing (I have yet to colour code it). I'd appreciate it if you calm down Sirell, you're going above and beyond antagonistic now. Edit: Apparently there's so much text you can't read the entire thing (character limit). But rest assured, my students will read everything ^^ [spoiler=Discrimination]Forums » Off Topic » Daughter Water [Gender Pay Inequality] Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 1, 2014 10:43pm | Report More than 3000 bottles of 'Daughter Water' were yesterday delivered to the desks of chief executives across the country - all in an effort to help equalise pay for men and women. Claiming to be formulated "using a potent combination of old wives' tales to help CEOs conceive baby girls," Daughter Water is the brainchild of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, and is actually the result of research which shows that pay disparity within organisations begins to shrink when the boss has a daughter. While this particular research has enabled the agency to develop and roll out this innovative and quirky campaign, the deeper message behind it remains the same: the disparity between what Australian men and women get paid is higher than ever, and it needs to be recognised. "It's a humorous way of attracting attention and ironically highlighting 'equal pay is in your hands' while raising further awareness," says Yolanda Beattie, Public Affairs Executive Manager at WGEA. "Discussions about pay can be confronting and challenging, so what we wanted to do was to make the conversations as positive and disarming as possible. We built the campaign into something with humour, with the insight that we needed more CEOs connecting to the issue of pay and equality." Beattie explains that research has indicated that a lot of CEOs admit that having a daughter was a defining moment of change for them in how they viewed these kinds of issues. It was this connection that fuelled the 'daughter water' campaign. "All of a sudden, they see their sons and daughters and want them to have the same opportunities as each other, but realise they don't have that in Australia," she says. "That's when they get the head and heart connection necessary to start being able to intervene." And it would appear that intervention is needed, as reflected in the most recent figures released by the WGEA. Almost three quarters of Australian employers haven't taken steps to ensure that they are paying men and women equally, while 73.7 per cent of organisations have never done a pay analysis. Less than one in five have conducted a gender pay analysis in the last 12 months. Here is where the problem lies: while most organisations believe they are paying awards or 'market rates' across the board, discrepancies are still creeping into pay rates. Without a gender pay analysis, this will continue to happen. "We know that gender bias exists. In fact, we currently have 32 CEO ambassadors who are standing up saying 'this is real' – but without conducting gender pay analysis, organisations can continue to overlook this, as some simply just don't know," explains Beattie. "We very often find that the differences can creep in when scales and ranges of pay are at a manager's discretion, and it is highly unusual that any company has a pay scale or range without discretions." Beattie explains that by conducting the analysis, employers will be able to detect where there might be bias, and further investigate how women and men are being assessed and subsequently paid in the workplace. But the aim of the campaign doesn't just serve to raise awareness amongst employers; it's also aimed at employees, with a dedicated webpage, inyourhands.org.au, offering tools and resources, Beattie explains. "We want employees to be able to see if their organisation has undertaken a gender pay analysis, as well as offer them guidance on how they can approach their employers about pay and how they can negotiate," she says. Whether or not the campaign will have the desired outcome remains to be seen, but so far the feedback has been positive. "We've been trending on Twitter and had thousands of hits on our video already," Beattie says. Regardless of anything else, it certainly appears that Daughter Water has is giving people something to talk about at the water cooler. - As I'm teaching Business with my current contract, one of my classes is actually learning about Australia's pay system and employee rights/obligations. I'll be talking to them about gender pay inequality. Thought this was interesting, anyway ^^ Not sure if this issue exists in other parts of the world - do you have any stories? Interesting scenario comparison: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Electro522 » October 1, 2014 11:00pm | Report As far as I know, Pay Inequality isn't nearly this bad in the U.S. Yes, there is a slight difference, and women do get the short end of the stick, but it isn't that much to start a nation wide movement. Plus, the inequality becomes more apparent with the more you get paid. If you have a simple job that pays minimum wage, no one will ever notice because the pay is the same. But, if you are, say, a doctor in a special field of medicine, then you will likely see a difference in the pay. I'd say, in the U.S., it's less of a problem of sex then it is race. A Caucasian male will not only get paid far more then an African American male, he will have a far easier time at finding a suitable career. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 1, 2014 11:03pm | Report Electro522 wrote: As far as I know, Pay Inequality isn't nearly this bad in the U.S. I know this is only Wiki, but apparently the gender pay gap in America is higher than in Australia by a few percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States ~19% in America ~17.5% in Australia --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Electro522 » October 1, 2014 11:49pm | Report Hmmm. Well, then I stand corrected. I guess we don't make as big of deal about it over here. Everyone is more concerned about what President Obama will have for lunch tomorrow. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by The_Nameless_Bard » October 2, 2014 12:29am | Report Nah, in the US we're too busy calling anyone who brings it up a crazy feminist. :P Give me a follow if you like! :D --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Searz » October 2, 2014 12:39am | Report I just wanna point out that that's likely across the board, a pretty unfair way of comparing things. Should one make a comparison it should be in a line of work where muscle isn't a big factor (sexual dimorphism in humanity give males more muscle). And then one needs to consider the fact that females can get pregnant, and pregnancy is a pretty huge negative for an employer. That being said, the pay gap is most definitely too big. Even considering differences in muscle and pregnancy the difference should not exceed 10%. Let's take teaching as an example since that is what you do. Teaching in general should have less than 10% difference in pay, seeing as muscle holds very little importance in that line of work (phys ed is an entirely different thing which I will ignore for now). The reason I would allow a difference in pay is solely on the basis that pregnancy is a pain in the ass for an employer. But I feel like there could be a way of solving this problem. Like, say, a contract between the employer and employee, stating that the employee cannot get pregnant during the next X years she works there, and for this she will receive equal pay to the men. That seems fair to me. Thoughts? --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 1:08am | Report ^Well, in terms of the pregnancy thing, it works both ways. The father asking for paternity leave is often seen as "soft"; if he does successfully get it (it's illegal to deny paternity leave here in Oz), he returns back to work and is seen positively as a father, more capable of many things (responsibility, bread winner, masculine). However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home. Your idea doesn't really have merit. The problem doesn't exist in the fact that a women gets pregnant and has to leave. The problem is that the employer doesn't consider the woman to be of equal value of a man after pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave, she is immediately devalued - she doesn't gain any sort of credibility for having children. Dictating when a woman can or can not get pregnant is pretty much discrimination. Also, what happens if she falls pregnant during the contract due to any sort of reason (rape etc)? Is her contract terminated? Why can a man be employed without signing the same contract? Why is the woman being punished for an act that takes two? Edited to add: And this cycle is cruel and perpetual. Families that are successful are often those wherein the women becomes a stay at home mother, allowing the father to work full time and earn substantially more than a family where the mother attempts to work full time. This isn't always the case, but when presented with the fact that women simply don't get promoted or paid as much as men, it seems easier not to try. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Searz » October 2, 2014 1:42am | Report It obviously goes both ways. I think the same contract would be fair for a man to sign as well. In terms of pregnancy if he was physically able to be pregnant, but more commonly for normal males: not in terms of pregnancy, but instead in terms of whether he will take a maternity leave or not. Because normal males aren't really physically unable to work the same way women are when a pregnancy occurs(toward the later parts ofc). And you're stating this on what basis? Personal experience? And even then it's simply an extrapolation. I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to do better than that if you wanna hold a real discussion. Why would it be? If it interferes with a persons work then anything is fair game for the employer. It is after all the employer that is giving her money to work, if said work cannot be fulfilled I think it would be rather stupid not to consider that. There's this pretty convenient thing called contraception(after-the-fact). The terms will be part of the contract itself, but generally the contract would obviously be terminated if the person gets pregnant. Yeah, let's be progressive here: if the person gets pregnant, no matter the gender or perceived gender identity. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 2:23am | Report But like I said, it's not that the woman becomes pregnant that is the problem, it's that when she returns to the work force she is automatically discriminated against in the sense that employers ALWAYS see the fact that she's a mother first above anything else she's done. Whereas a man who becomes a father is a worker first before a dad. https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf ^ Lol, that's my point, it's discrimination. You can't just choose not to hire someone because maybe they'd get pregnant. Just like you can't choose to not hire a disabled person because their "disability will interfere with their work". That's discriminatory. I don't make the rules, that's just how they stand; you can be sued for defending your employee choices with "their fat would interfere with work" or "his skin colour doesn't match our decor". Mmm, so what about people who can't take the morning after pill because it is against their religious beliefs to terminate a pregnancy? Again, asking an employee to terminate their child as it is violating their contract is discrimination. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by oxide110 » October 2, 2014 3:13am | Report I presume this has happened to you, or are you just basing it off what you've read about? --------------------------------- by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 3:27am | Report No, it hasn't happened to me. Like most/everything I haven't experienced myself, I rely on the knowledge and information available to me; though I like to think I can trust Australian government research :) Don't get me wrong, being a mother can definitely benefit you in certain jobs, such as childcare, but in terms of corporate or other jobs, not so. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by xIchi » October 2, 2014 3:41am | Report You are forgetting that those differencies are due to women looking for jobs that are more in synv with their life as a mother, leading to less pay. These statistcis are heavily biased and women in coprorate jobs (at least in germany) gain only 8% less. Edit: To clarify: German statistic say that women gain 22% less pay, but that is just because of the way people telling half of the truth --------------------------------- Not so. The stats I linked from the Australian government website compare the gender pay gap for like-jobs, not the difference in pay between a female teacher and a male construction worker. But they're still earning less and for no discernible reason other than the fact they are female. How is that half the truth? --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by BlueArtist » October 2, 2014 5:19am | Report Oh, I forgot jhoijhoi was a teacher. Firstly, I think This is also a good read on the subject. In my country, there is about 11.1% of pay gap in 2013, which has risen significantly from 7.3% in 2010. However, the gender pay gap can be easily explained. As mentioned by Searz, Occupational Segregation is the main problem and it cannot be helped. The interruption of work hours due to Motherhood or Maternity Leaves are found to be causing the mother's work experience to be abbreviated. Several reliable sources have cited the same. It is inevitable that a woman is "devalued", as you call it, after pregnancy. Your dedication and ability due to motherhood will be put into consideration for whether you are up to your job, and certain job scopes are not suitable for a mother. It is pretty much up to your job to decide whether pregnancy is an issue; A teacher, let's say, would less likely get her ability questioned even when she entered motherhood. I don't know about contracts terminated due to pregnancy; I'm still so young. Seems obviously unreasonable to me, since motherhood would more likely mature the person. Then again, whether it gets terminated all comes down to what job the subject we are talking about has. Pardon me for being repetitive. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 6:01am | Report Blue: Not terminated, but more so job prospects are less. A woman doesn't have to be the primary caregiver of her children, but organisations often assume that they are, hence promotions are not offered to mothers. Whereas a man who has fathered a child has no "onus" upon him of being a primary caregiver, even if he is - an organisation doesn't consider that a man could be a father. It's a societal perception that women would rather stay at home, or work part time to be with their children; for women who are ambitious and attempt to climb through the ranks after having children, they are faced with an unfortunate reality that higher-ups will give promotions to men (or other women) who do not have children, as they are deemed to "have more time" for the job. In Australia if you get pregnant and are permanently employed, you are entitled to 6 months paid maternity leave or 1 year paid maternity leave at half the pay. Your job is also held open for you, for you to return, and you are likely to be offered part time, as opposed to full time. If you are in contract or part-time work, I'm unsure of how maternity leave works. I should should so some more research ^^ Also, great link Blue! --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Janitsu » October 2, 2014 6:03am | Report My old teacher used to say: "valhe, emävalhe, tilasto" (which basically means "lie, a bigger lie, statistics) Statistics are an easy way to fool people and make them believe stuff. For example the "Finnish Feminists" had the pay differences researched and put them in to the statistics. The statistics said that Finnish woman earns 30% than Finnish male. I can't tell what's the case in Australia, but the reason why the difference was so high is that: Women usually do not want as much salary and do not demand as much as males do The statistics were based on the AVERAGE SALARY of men and women. There are more men in high-earning jobs so therefore they will quite likely earn more. Women can get pregnant even during their studies and may not be able to finish them and therefore be uneducated and earn less money So the statistic was a "lie" (it presented the truth in a very untruthful way). The way you do the research is what defines its value. I can't tell how the Australian ones are done but I think they are done quite like the one I used as an example and it might have some "misinformation" in it as it doesn't present the results clearly. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Nighthawk » October 2, 2014 6:14am | Report there are far more important things in the world than pay inequality let's start with the reasons there's pay inequality, for example and it's not because employers just pay women less than men --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 6:21am | Report The first part of that sentence is a stereotype and purely based upon your own views of women not needing as much money as men. However, the second part is correct; assertive women are not valued in business, hence if they ask or demand a higher salary, they are less successful in getting it than men. Confidence/assertiveness is a masculine trait and considered unsavory on a woman. Yes. That's the point. Women don't get promoted, and overall, don't get paid as much as men. If you read further you would know that it doesn't matter that the results have been averages, as even female doctors are paid less than male doctors, for example. Women are paid less, regardless of the job they are employed in. This is a little insulting on many levels, but mainly the fact that your sentence assumes that pregnancy stops a woman from being able to study and learn. The fact of the matter is, a brother and sister (twins) could attend the same schools, the same university, complete the same degree, with the same grades, get a position in the same company, but over time, the male twin will end up earning more than the female twin. I studied one year of psychology at university, which required the study of statistics. There are many sources out there that are untrustworthy and full of bad statistics. This source is not one of them; it does not skew the data and it discusses all trends (increase/decrease of gender pay gap etc). The document merely informs the reader that due to ingrained social perceptions of women, women are paid less across the board due to a number of reasons. In the end, it doesn't matter what those reasons are, because the statistics don't lie - women are being paid less. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by sirell » October 2, 2014 6:55am | Report Nope. It's not discrimination at all. Discrimination is being deliberately and unjustly treated for a particular quality you have. In this case, you are trying to say it's with the sex. But rather, the terms are EXACTLY THE SAME as males. In this case, the condition of employment we are going with is to not become pregnant. Since males don't have the biological function to do so, there's no risk of this being reneged. It's merely a biological advantage in looking for employment. If a female agrees to the contract, that's HER initiative not to get pregnant. It's not discrimination at all. You get paid for the work you do. That's the fundamental of meritocracy. If you take time off due to pregnancy, why should you be paid for work you don't do? A lot of employment are lucky that pregnancy leave + pay is given. Again, choosing an employee based on whether or not they may or may not get pregnant isn't discrimination, but rather, it's pragmatism. There are also other jobs where it's in the description that you can't be fat and even in some cases, a particular skin colour. For the former, take athletes, for example. If you are competing on a team, and you are dropped because you're fat, is that discrimination? No! It's because your physique gets in the way of your performance. Want to sue me? I'd like to see you try. For the latter, imagine as a director, you are casting the role of an East Asian lead, who's skin tone has to be only lightly tanned. You can't very well cast a black person, can you? That would just be severely disadvantageous for the job. Again, it is not. It is not the fault of the employer that you got raped (I assume. if so, then that's a different crime anyway) and even less his fault that you violate the terms of employment by valuing your religion more. In fact, letting this slide and letting you work despite your pregnancy, which will undoubtedly at some point interfere with your work, he will end up offering a subpar service to customers. If he's forced into keeping an employee because he can't 'discriminate', it will leave his business at a big disadvantage which, in turn, will serve as a disadvantage for the employee. I hate to say it so coldly, but if you sign a contract with the terms that you don't get pregnant, but then value non-contraception because of personal belief when you get raped, then that's on you, not the employer. You understood what you agreed to and are now crying 'discrimination' because you yourself refuse to adhere to the terms? Not to sound heartless, but that's pretty damn selfish to want the best of all situations for yourself even when things go badly. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 7:41am | Report Sirell, first off, you raise some good points and I appreciate you bringing them up. Yes, it is discrimination. The quality that females have is the ability to get pregnant. "From a human rights perspective, women have the right to be free from discrimination in the work place on the basis of their pregnancy, or deemed potential pregnancy." You are saying that just because women can get pregnant, it's okay for a contract to be written wherein the woman is not allowed to get pregnant. Whilst I'm not arguing that there aren't scenarios where contracts like this might exist (porn stars, actors, whatever), in a normal employment contract it WOULD be discrimination to not hire a woman just because she plans on becoming pregnant in the near future. That was my point. "Potential pregnancy means discrimination against employees who may become pregnant or who are believed to be pregnant." Pragmatism is a belief that a certain way is more practical; do you really believe a pregnant woman is less capable of performing a job to the same level as before the pregnancy? Does a woman suddenly become incapacitated during pregnancy? In terms of practicality, sure, it can be practical to have a man at work 9-5 every day for a year, as opposed to a woman having to leave after a certain time - but this practically completely ignores how successful the woman makes the company. There's a difference between discrimination and suitability for a job. "Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height etc". I was merely referring to the idea that a fat man may not be hired to be a salesperson due to his weight. Not that the fat man was denied the right to participate in the Olypmics ;) And this sort of thinking is what is holding back progression. Women are fully capable of performing their duties up to a point during pregnancy (strippers and manual laborers excluded). Your statement assumes that a woman's work standard becomes subpar sometime during pregnancy. Where do you get that opinion from? Agreeably, there may be a disadvantage of the loss of an employee, but many employees leave employment at any time; at least you have a few months warning :P I have to sleep now, early morning tomorrow, so won't be able to reply til a fair bit later. This discussion is great and I'm enjoying the back and forth of conversation. With this thread I merely wanted to raise awareness of the gender pay gap, and it's great that other facets of the problem are being explored. --------------------------------- by xIchi » October 2, 2014 8:11am | Report You know, there is stuff after pregnancy. A child requires quite some amount of time to be taken care of. After pregnancy, in most cases, the woman will care for the child which then goes back to the employer having an employee that is less efficient. In some countries the husband can apply for martial leave, letting the wife going to work. But it is mostly expected for the woman to take care of the child and thus being less inefficient. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by PsiGuard » October 2, 2014 9:09am | Report This is a pretty weird double-standard. I would almost expect the father to get less respect since it's less apparent that he'd need leave from work when having a child (and historically women have been the ones taking care of newborns usually, though that's changing a bit). You'd think a woman who returns to work after her maternity leave would be seen as diligent. Kind of surprising and sad that it's the other way around, apparently. :/ I don't really see how the you-can't-get-pregnant contract thing is discrimination though. It's not like they said you can't have a period or something. Getting pregnant doesn't happen unless you make it happen. Work contracts should have some say in your personal life if it can affect your productivity as a worker. A contract could say that you're not allowed to leave the country or something like that without infringing on your rights since it's an agreement that you assent to beforehand. Regardless, it's definitely not very comparable to a situation with race or even weight. You can't choose to just not be a black person while working at a company (which is why it would be discriminatory to deny someone a job based on their race unless it somehow affected their ability to perform the job, like an actor for a Caucasian character). To an extent, you also can't decide not to be fat in order to work at a job. You can, however, decide to not have unprotected sex, or sex entirely, while you're working at a job if that's in your contract. Personally I don't see why that kind of stipulation would even be necessary, but even if it's a stupid part of a contract that doesn't make it discrimination. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Searz » October 2, 2014 9:41am | Report Nailed it right on the head there. You and Sirell are absolutely right. @xIchi and Janitsu Your views on this topic seem narrow-minded to the point of silliness. Read the link Jhoi posted if you're actually interested in the topic: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf There are a few inconsistencies and while I suspect that it's very slightly angled, it's not enough to skew it much. It's a correct representation of how things would turn out, for the most part. THERE ARE ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS Stop using it as a reason to dismiss things, ya dum fuk. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by caucheka » October 2, 2014 11:02am | Report i dont know how much was really said i skimmed the thread but another thing to keep in mind is men are more willing to work dangerous jobs, which pay higher due to the risks. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 2, 2014 2:33pm | Report The general reason, I think, is that women are usually more involved into the whole "having a kid" thing. This isn't a clever joke or something, nor is it a pun on pregnancy, but it's rather about the fact that women are simply more emotionally involved. Once a woman becomes a mother, usually the child becomes top priority, as in, child first, then work. This means that an employee becomes a liability as there's always a 1 in X chance that something occurs that causes them to prioritise the child and thus divert attention from the job. This makes it more risky to put someone like this at a higher position in a company. Men, on the other hand, are generally about as emotional as a brick and have an easier time distancing themselves. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by sirell » October 2, 2014 3:55pm | Report jhoijhoi wrote: I'll start with this section, since it bares relevance to consequent points. Let me highlight something that seems to imply something contradictory: It seems you are saying that they are fully capable of being limited, implying that pregnant women can and can't perform their job optimally. Either that, or you are admitting that women can't perform their job to the utmost of their abilities. Regardless, even you seem unwilling to fully commit to the idea that a women's performance isn't affected by pregnancy. However, even if you aren't suggesting that pregnancy causes subpar performance, it is simply not true. For the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the woman experiences fatigue, dizziness, nausea, cramps and sickness, as well as other symptoms. After this, she may continuously experience cravings, mood swings, increased urination, as well as any others from the early stages which would not occur had she not gotten pregnant. Towards the end stages, her movement becomes increasingly limited in addition to some of these symptoms. A counter to your point is simply to rephrase your question how does pregnancy NOT affect your performance? It's a severe biological change and saying it doesn't affect your performance (depending on the job) is very... well, ignorant. I'm not sure when maternity leave is granted, but then her absence affects the work. I am not assuming anything. Pregnancy really DOES make your job making ability sub-par. And I haven't even begun to talk about the emotional changes that may occur with pregnancy. Depending on the job, I very much think that her working ability is very strongly compromised. Or at least, it's extremely understandable for an employer to view it as such. A most critical disadvantage is one you point out yourself - the absence of the worker. Having to employ another worker to take their place requires time and effort - interviews, recruitment advertisements, administration paperwork, which you can avoid by employing someone who doesn't get pregnant or, if they do, use contraception, in the first place and can thus continue working. This is completely 100% pragmatism. Even if states and countries rule these as 'pregnancy discrimination', I outright disagree with their position. In my opinion, this ruling practically makes it that I shouldn't be discriminating on ability either, that I should just hire anyone! God forbid that I want to avoid hiring someone who may get pregnant and therefore have to get time off, and whilst she is still working, possibly have her undergo fatigue, illness, mood swings and what have you. Why don't I just hire someone who won't get pregnant and avoid ALL of that? Not pragmatism? It surely is. This thinking isn't holding back progression at all. If anything, allowing workers that will get pregnant will get in the way of progression, if you really want to go that route. I honestly think that a solid case can be made that removing pregnancy discrimination is slowing progression. Disagree. Just because the states make it so doesn't mean it actually is. As I said previously, I don't think it's 'unfair' and getting a worker who will work continuously without having to get maternity/paternity leave nor be a subpar worker during pregnancy will, in the eyes of an employer, be far more pragmatic. If we can judge on ability in order to consider candidacy for employment, why not consider pregnancy, which will affect one's ability during work? I think it's completely okay for a contract to include that, actually. I can completely understand why an employer would want a worker who doesn't have to be absent nor have their physiology possibly affect their performance. In the same way, I can understand why a woman who wants to have a child would think it's unfair that she gets penalised for candidacy because that's her lifestyle choice. Putting the anti-pregnancy discrimination laws into effect, if such a woman doesn't fit the bill that the employer is looking for, I honestly don't think that the employer should be, by law, forced into having to employ such a person out of fear of getting sued. It seems like he is offering a potentially subpar service just to avoid another disadvantage, which is getting sued. Not necessarily less capable, but it certainly runs the risk (for above physiological reasons). Then that's up to the employer to discern the trade-off between an absent but great worker as opposed to (let's say) a consistently average worker. I don't see any reason why the state should interfere and say, 'Hey! No pregnancy discrimination!'. Yes, there's a subtle difference, but there are very common overlapping points (if I assume I accept that it's 'discrimination', which I don't). You can't just differentiate just because it's convenient. There are cases where an employer will think that suitability for a job includes considering whether or not the worker will become pregnant. Sure, he's 'discriminating', but he's discriminating for the sake of the suitability of the job, particularly long-term. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 4:03pm | Report Psi, Ichi and Nick: That's the problem, you assume that a woman IS the primary caregiver, that the woman WANTS to take care of a child once the child has been born. That's simply not the case for women who do want to continue their careers. But the problem is men and women in this society do not consider whether or not the woman is the primary caregiver - they just assume it. Leaving a country is different from being part of a company and getting pregnant. Getting pregnant is the choice of the woman, not the choice of the employer. A similar contract could state, "You are not allowed to pray during your time here" - that's religious discrimination. A contract that withholds the rights of a human being can be discrimination if it's targeting a particular quality, or perceived quality (pregnancy). Due to this reprieved stereotype that women are not capable of work during pregnancy, or capable of returning to full time work after pregnancy, women in positions of being promoted are often asked, "What are your plans for family" or "Are you planning on taking a 6-12 month leave of absence". These questions are not only potentially unlawful, they also defeat the purpose of open recruiting by basing selection criteria on irrelevant matters. Not just that, "For women employees who choose to have a family, it is in the interests of employers to understand their rights and responsibilities, accommodate the pregnancy, and encourage employees to remain with them." - the employer shouldn't be seeking to eliminate women who plan to get pregnant, but to accommodate for pregnancy. You can't fire a pregnant woman because the floors are often slippery, thus too dangerous to have her around; you should fix the floor. As an employer you shouldn't be thinking that pregnancy "gets in the way of business", thus you shouldn't be writing contracts about it. Keep in mind, I'm referring to "normal" job positions. Not positions that require a woman to remain unpregnant, like porn stars. Even TV presenters, A-list actors etc are "allowed" to get pregnant during their contracts/employment. What I'm trying to say, is unless the job requires you not to get pregnant for some reason, it is discrimination to write a contract forbidding a woman to get pregnant. The only example I could find was this one, and even then, it's from a country where women have less rights away. Here's an example of pregnancy discrimination: Discriminating against a pregnant employee Melissa is a full-time employee and works in a clothing store. She tells her boss Peter that she is pregnant. A few weeks later her hours are reduced and she is told that she is now a part-time employee. When Melissa asks Peter about this he tells he is reducing her hours to help her with her pregnancy and that in his family the women always reduce their hours when they are pregnant. Even though Peter thinks he is helping Melissa this is still discrimination. He is treating her differently to his other employees because she is pregnant. There are so many sources of information out there. Unless I am absolutely completely missing the point of pregnancy discrimination, it is unfair for a contract to exist wherein the employee is forbidden to get pregnant. Indirect pregnancy and potential pregnancy discrimination takes place when there is a requirement, condition or practice that disadvantages pregnant or potentially pregnant women. It will not be discriminatory if the requirement, condition or practice is reasonable in the circumstances. In assessing whether an action was reasonable, a court will consider, among other things, the disadvantage to the employee, how the disadvantage could be overcome and whether it is proportionate to what an employer sought to achieve. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/pregnancy-guidelines-2001 http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/pregnant-employee-entitlements I'm going out with a friend now, but will reply when I get back. Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier, maternity leave is subsidized by the government, meaning employers are not out of pocket paying for the woman for not working. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 2, 2014 4:28pm | Report So you think it's okay to fire someone or not hire someone because of these symptoms that can be caused by any numerous amount of causes? Such as cancer treatment, disability, PTSD - any number of things. You can't just fire someone due to these conditions unless the job specifically necessitates them to be of sound health. Sirell, it's not okay to think this way. Some women work a week before they are due to give birth and are not affected by those symptoms above. You can't just assume that a woman will work subpar due to "expected symptoms". Even then, as a work employer, you should be making accommodations for a pregnant woman, not firing them because they're pregnant. I have so much more to say, but my friend is over now and they're more important than trying to convey to you that your opinions of pregnancy AND women is outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory. Edited to add something my friend just said: "Sorry, we can't hire you, you're fertile!" --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by sirell » October 2, 2014 5:12pm | Report Fire someone? Maybe. Not hire? Understandably so. Don't divert the topic onto other things. We are talking of pregnancy and the symptoms that it invariably brings, which will also affect the performance of the job. First of all, telling someone 'it's not okay to think this way', along with calling their thinking 'outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory' is really discriminatory as fuck and quite frankly, uncalled for. You basically implicitly said 'you're a sociopath' just because I think slightly differently from you or even maybe even the majority. What the actual fuck. That was so hypocritical on several different levels and I honestly expected better from you. I expected a reasonable discussion after the initial things you get, instead I'm just met with a direct attack on my person (also largely WRONG perceptions of my person). Hell, you don't even UNDERSTAND my opinions on women; I haven't said ANYTHING about them. We have been speaking of pregnancy and its link to the workplace, not women. I clearly said many times it's dependent on the job and the fact that 'some women' can work a week is not to generalise that the majority do. The exception are not the rule. No, fuck it, you don't deserve a proper reply any more. As soon as you brought insults into this discussion, you lost all right to be taken seriously. Btw, last I checked, females can be fertile too. Seriously, fuck your sexist bullshit. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by xIchi » October 2, 2014 6:20pm | Report If we want to make everything entire equally, there wouldn't be different genders and we would reproduce by dividing our cells. This is just all double-standards. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 2, 2014 7:44pm | Report That's not what I said, you need to read properly before actually start disagreeing with my point of view. I never said anything about primary caregiver. I'm pretty 110% fucking sure that, generally speaking, when a baby is born, the mother has a whole lot more complex emotional bs going on than the male who is also responsible for that same offspring, mostly because of all the hormones. I am not talking about gender roles, I'm talking about biological instinct of most females out there. Now don't get me wrong for I'm not saying that there are no men out there like Will Smith, other than Will Smith, nor am I not saying that there aren't more women out there who completely abandon their children like the average meth-addicted whore. Now I'm going to close my browser again and eagerly await your response which will obviously make this whole comment sound sexist in some kind of alternative universe. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Jimmydoggga 2.0 » October 2, 2014 8:08pm | Report Now I'm not trying to be sexist here but . --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Embracing » October 2, 2014 9:05pm | Report i agree with sirell here ;O Employers are always seeking to maximize productivity and benefits. I really don't see how it's discriminatory to include a term that prohibits pregnancy, since pregnancy will almost guarantee a lack of productivity. It's not like employers "don't want women." They simply don't want to deal with the costs of having a relatively inefficient worker. Women are permitted to work under the same circumstances as men. Pregnancy is a choice to be made and is absolutely avoidable if a woman wants to focus on work. Now on the other hand if a woman wants a child AND the ability to work, I think it's her responsibility to negotiate the terms with the employer. I really don't see how it's the employer's responsibility to alleviate for a worker's lack of productivity. Workers are the ones trying to earn the money. Employers are supposed to have a natural advantage in selecting who they want in their company. Same reasoning as why workers who are slacking off get fired - because they aren't working at a high enough efficiency. I think arguments for "gender equality" in modern society are really getting out of hand. The general public arguing for feminism is gradually starting to expect compensation for natural disadvantages just by slapping on some phrases like "discrimination" and gender equality." I mean gender inequality, for the most part, refers to a difference in expectations and treatment in genders due to stereotypes. It's not like males and females should both be exactly the same. Males and females are two different genders for a reason. just my 2c --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by caucheka » October 2, 2014 11:16pm | Report my post here is reaching out to pretty much anything, not just the pay gap myth that feminists like to perpetuate. let me preface this by posting some hard facts. men, have an xy chromosome. women, have an xx chromosome. this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children. this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children. this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic fucking human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics. yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by emoriam » October 2, 2014 11:51pm | Report You missed out Turner-Syndrome --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 3, 2014 12:08am | Report Uh no. Human males, usually, feature one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Human females, on the other hand, feature two X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes. Call me a nitpicking twat all you want, but if you're going to state something, at least have the decency to look it up on Wikipedia just for the sake of making sure that you state it right. Actually, no. The reason men hunt and women didn't was because of their physical superiority and not solely because they have a Y chromosome. One can argue that the Y chromosome is the initial cause of that but that does not allow it to be used as an argument in modern times, unless we're talking about physically exhausting work. This argument is essentially "Don't fix that what isn't broken" which isn't an argument at all. That depends entirely on the era. I mean there were times women weren't allowed to vote for example, that has nothing to do with the whole "men hunt, women gather berries" argument. That it's more favourable depends entirely on what we are talking about. There's no real reason that women are supposedly worse at managing people than men are. However, just the fact that we are used to this makes people feel more secure with a man in charge, thus making companies more inclined to go with men. This is just one of the examples. Also, I'm not saying that this policy is wrong, because, frankly, it's fairly understandable, although it is the result of some gender role division we have established. Sure, there's some situations in which men are treated "unfairly" based on a gender role stereotype but that generally doesn't seem so interesting to the media. Also, I doubt we should strive for equality, because frankly, and this is something I do agree with, is that men and women are different regarding certain things. However, this aims more at the cases in which the inequality is merely the result of an arbitrary gender role division we are sticking by for the sake of convenience and not when it is the result of actual causations that can be backed up by deductive reasoning. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 12:20am | Report I think we got on the wrong track here. My intention wasn't to insult you, I do apologise. I merely meant that your opinion that discrimination isn't discrimination is literally wrong based upon your own words "I don't care if it's discrimination, my opinion is that it isn't". I'm not excusing the above words, but I didn't call YOU names, I was referring to your viewpoints. But I do apologise, as I really didn't mean to insult you. I was in a rush to get out of the house and wasn't thinking about my own words and how they'd hurt you - that was poor form on my behalf. As for the fertile comment, that was my point actually. Not hiring someone because they can bear children - I wasn't referring to men with that comment. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 3, 2014 12:35am | Report Oh excuse me for assuming that someone who gets pregnant wants to take care of children, my bad. Maybe if you do not want to take care of the thing then you shouldn't get it in the first place! This may be incredibly controversial, but I, for one, think that not taking care of your children is bad. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 12:38am | Report Nick, I missed your point in the previous post, could you explain/elaborate further with what you meant? (the point about biological attachment and hormones) Is your view the same for the father? Should the father also take time from work to raise a child and then return to work part-time? --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 3, 2014 12:52am | Report With all the love, care, and respect in the world, I really think you need to read a book with the title along the line of "My Body and I" because I can't understand how a woman can ask me that question. My point was that, generally speaking, assuming the mother is healthy, the mother will experience a natural, biological, attachment to/bond with their offspring, mostly due to the effect of hormones. This actually is, unlike Caucheka's statement, a result of genetics and it has a very obvious biological function: Survival. Hence, my statement wasn't so much directed at "they want to" but more at "they need to" because that's normal. For fathers, however, this is different, mostly because they did not actually spent 9 months carrying them around, thus they're less inclined on insisting to take care of them. Does that mean that fathers never want that? No. However it's more of an exception than a rule. Sure I've heard of a lot of guys who were really happy to be a father, but didn't really feel the need to be with the kid 24 hours of each passing day because they can't really do anything with the child. I'm paraphrasing here but I'm sure that you get the point. --------------------------------- by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 1:10am | Report Research "bonding". Both males and females undergo hormonal effects due to pregnancy and raising offspring. "Parenting behavior" is the result of these hormonal effects. During pregnancy, 2/3rds of women experience a positive bonding feeling with their baby; I haven't found any stats about whether 2/3rds of men experience a positive bond with their baby, so I cannot assume this to be the case. However, if both men and women experience hormonal effects due to pregnancy, is it not fair to assume that both men and women experience natural, biological attachment/bond with their offspring? Edit: I'd like to add, that before today, I didn't really ever think about the gender pay gap. I only found out about pregnancy discrimination through researching the gender pay gap. I do appreciate this discussion, because if nothing else, I've become more informed. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by sirell » October 3, 2014 1:39am | Report WE got on the wrong track? No, missy. YOU. Your intention wasn't to insult? What did you think would happen? That's NOT even what I said! I said (repeatedly) I don't care if the LAW or STATE says it's discrimination. In my opinion, it's not. That's some really insincere blame-dodging. Saying my viewpoints are 'xyz', doesn't mean you're not saying that I'm 'xyz'? I am the holder of these views, these views which you are (mistakenly) saying is 'xyz'. That basically implies I am those things also, or did you think it implied the opposite? You even said something so judgemental as, 'You can't think these things'. Not even SAYING, but THINKING it is taboo? Sorry, but you were very clearly making a direct attack on me. I don't think I can accept an apology which I don't think is completely sincere or even honest. I apologise for what may be perceived as 'immaturity', but if I said 'apology accepted', I'd be lying. It's still sexist, because you omit that men can be fertile if you meant female. And you STILL miss the core of argument. It's not the fact that you CAN bear children, but rather that as an employer, I don't want to employ someone who INTENDS to have a child, be it male or female. I don't want an employer that will take paternity/maternity leave when I can have an employer that won't take any of this. Take your dark-tinted glasses off, for fuck's sakes. I won't comment any further, since it'll be off-topic and it would be unwise of me. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 2:03am | Report Isn't that what I said? Your opinion is that is isn't discrimination when the law/state says it is. If my opinion was that the moon was made of cheese and the fact of the matter is that the moon is not made of cheese, my opinion would be wrong. Apology accepted. I know you don't believe me, and I accept that, but I in all honesty didn't mean to insult you. But just because my intention wasn't to insult you, it doesn't mean that I didn't ultimately insult you by judging you for your views. That's why I apologised. I'm not one to back down and apologise for no reason - I know when I've been a dick and said something I shouldn't have, and genuinely want to take back the hurt. Ah, I must have missed this point. In which case your ideas/opinions are discriminatory in general. You pretty much just said, "I wouldn't hire a parent". Can you imagine a world where all employers refused to employ people who had children or planned to have children? Now you're talking about "carer or parental status discrimination". We're already pretty off topic, but I don't think it matters when you're in the Off Topic forum ^^ --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by BlueArtist » October 3, 2014 2:05am | Report Yes, it is fair to say that the parents both experience bonding to their child, but not the same level. A woman generally experience more bonding to their child, since what the man did not go through was all the emotional and physical conditions a woman has. However is it also not natural that most women, instead of men, are more likely to be the main caretaker for the child? Do you see more stay-at-home dads than moms? It is not merely an assumption nor stereotype, it is the way it has been going on for centuries. It is hard to change, and I doubt it will. Pregnancy discrimination is a wide topic. What I think is that the employer is right in fearing the loss of productivity, but not in treating the woman unfairly. It is undeniable that a pregnant woman would lose her productivity to a certain point, and that after pregnancy she would undoubtedly invest more time into her child. Same might go for a Father, still after pregnancy it is more likely for the man to continue working instead of a woman. I find this topic to be largely based on the current stereotypes and is hard to structure a discussion without it. Interesting topic though. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 2:15am | Report Yes, pretty much everything you said was based on stereotypical views that women have to be the primary caretaker of a child (among other stereotypical statements). A woman can easily have a baby and go straight back to work, leaving the man at home to take care of the child. Or, a woman can easily have a baby and stay at home to take care of the child, leaving the man to go straight back to work. The problem is that people don't see it as "one person stays home after a child is born, and the other works to provide for the family", but "the mother stays home after a child is born, and the father works to provide for the family". A lot of you have been mentioning that a woman loses productivity during her active time at work during pregnancy. I would like to see some research about that, as I am genuinely interested. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by GrandmasterD » October 3, 2014 3:03am | Report The fact that it's there doesn't say anything about the intensity whatsoever. Of course, fathers are happy/proud/*insert emotion here* with their children, and obviously they feel a connection with them. However, the feelings that arise are different That seems to be the case with a lot of discussions that deal with this kind of subject. On a different note though, how does the Australian law define discrimination? I know for a fact that the Dutch Law defines it as (loosely translated): "Treating an individual or group in a way that differs from the norm when there is no justification for doing so." Based on this, you could say that what Sirell is trying to point out, assuming I understand him correctly, that in this particular case it's perfectly justifiable to treat a pregnant woman in a different manner. Denying that is essentially saying that pregnancy is, other than giving birth, no big deal and should not interfere with your life at all as long as you are tenacious. I mean, if a woman can work with the same amount of energy - noting that the very Law of Conservation of Energy already contradicts this - whether she is pregnant or not. This would mean that no woman should actually get days off for being pregnant, and if you state that, then there's absolutely no risk for companies left so then the problem would be (largely) solved. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by BlueArtist » October 3, 2014 3:27am | Report Productivity is undoubtedly lower during pregnancy, with all the physical conditions such as fatigue, dizziness, nausea, cramps and sickness, as well as other symptoms. Also, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to admit that in some lines of work, in some capacity, pregnant women near delivery might be a little less productive. Some things such as lifting heavy objects is obviously going to be hard. As a society which is so focused on delivering results and go, go, go - trying not to discriminate a pregnant woman, whose productivity is lowered, becomes simply unrealistic. On the topic of pregnancy discrmination, I'll throw this in as further reading. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by sirell » October 3, 2014 3:40am | Report You still miss the point. Just because the law or state says that something is the case, doesn't mean it's true. This is a matter of definition, which has no synthetic properties to speak of. We can agree as to what is meant when the word is used, but I do not, by any means, have to agree with the definition, because the definition need not be true. Definitions have continuously changed over the course of history, so this isn't a matter of whether my opinion corresponds with 'facts', but rather I am disputing the opinion of another (the state/law). The Law =/= morality. If I follow the law, am I good person? Of course not, that has nothing to do with it. In the same way, saying something is discrimination just because the law says it is completely avoids the actual question. No. No. No. No. No. Stop removing what I am saying out of context, for god's sakes. I don't even know whether I should really try and explain it any further, because you just completely extrapolate and put words in my mouth that I don't even IMPLY, let alone say. Firstly, there's a difference between someone who intends to have children and a parent. The employer is already aware of what is meant in employing someone who is already a parent. However, the situation may change with someone who intends to have children, since it will 100% guarantee that the employee will be absent for maternity/paternity leave (depending on the job - just in case you miss this shit again -). Neither are my ideas/opinions 'discriminatory in general', seriously, TRY and UNDERSTAND. Stop assuming/extrapolating and READ what the fuck I'm writing. I have been constantly and always talking about the employers' discretion in picking what they consider to be the optimal employee (which will, ultimately involve some of discerning of ability, which you call 'discrimination'), in particular, with their discretion, I think it's entirely fine for them to consider that it's more convenient not to employ a worker who will take time off and will require replacement. Look, maybe you'll understand if I write something ridiculous: So let's assume pregnancy discrimination is valid. By extension, why can I not argue against 'non-skilled discrimination'? I have no skills in the job area, but why should that mean the employer doesn't have to consider me for employment? No, fuck them, they should employ me and they should teach me, so I can do the job, because that's what equality's about, isn't it? Equal opportunity, equal pay, isn't that what you're saying? Hell, resumes and CVs shouldn't matter at all! What about age? Should that be a consideration, or would that be 'discrimination' too? Hell, I'm 12 years old, I should be able to get any job with the proper qualifications, right? What about when I'm 90? That's equality right there. The blunt honest truth is just that the world isn't equal. That's why making legislation for equality actually does nothing to actually promote equality. --------------------------------- Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by jhoijhoi » October 3, 2014 4:00am | Report I'm absolutely happy to concede that at a certain point in pregnancy, a woman may not be able to perform to full potential; it is at this point that many women decide to take maternity leave. However, I fail to see how this is an acceptable reason for women to not work whilst pregnant. A woman can also suffer mood-swings due to her period - should employees refrain from employing a woman in the event they'll bleed, have a head-ache/stomach ache and preform less than normal? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but from what I'm reading, many of you think that it's okay for employees to think about women as child-bearers, and as such will be unproductive during a potential pregnancy. And during pregnancy, without even considering who the mother may be, you think that their ability to work will be sub-par. There are plenty of jobs that women can work effectively well into their pregnancy (thinking about teaching, office jobs); on the flip side, there are[/quote]

[quote=sirell]And I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up, but we don't all get what we want in life. #inequality. [quote=jhoijhoi]Please keep this discussion going[/quote] You can't pick and choose, dear.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=jhoijhoi]I know this is a public forum, but before I print off every response to bring with me to class (even the off-topic posts) for my students to discuss, just thought I'd give everyone the opportunity to delete their posts or contact me to omit their quotes from my own posts. I feel that my students will learn a lot about discrimination in the workplace from reading this thread. (If you participated in this thread, it'd be great - but not necessary - if you could state what country you spent the majority of your life in, so as a class we can discuss any socio-cultural implications of opinions)[/quote] As Meiyjhe wrote, please wait for people to give their approval before showing their comments to your class or others. Just to avoid controversy if nothing else. You may display my comments freely (even this one) under one condition: that you show the comments in their entirety. I do not want anything I've written taken out of context. Many of the things I write rely on the things I'm quoting to understand. I even went back and rearranged my previous response to you to make it more structured and easier to read. I'm very satisfied with the things I've written in this thread. (I also changed any all-caps things to bolded text, all-caps is my lazy way of doing bold text) I grew up in Sweden, a country where equality holds high value. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia: "Sweden maintains a Nordic social welfare system that provides universal health care and tertiary education for its citizens. It has the world's eighth-highest per capita income and ranks highly in numerous comparisons of national performance, including quality of life, health, education, protection of civil liberties, economic competitiveness, [b]equality[/b], prosperity and human development."[/quote]

[quote=Janitsu]Well if you want to include my comment I live in Finland. I don't see why though as my comment is poorly presented (as I speak rather bad English) and I failed to deliver the main point I was supposed to make.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]Searz: Unfortunately quotes didn't look right when I copied the text, so I removed quotes - I do think some meaning is lost, but the general gist of everything is there. It'll depend on whether MobaFire is blocked for the students, but it's possible they'll just be able to read the thread themselves at home (they can do some homework and then read some LoL guides :P).[/quote]

[quote=Jimmydoggga 2.0]You wanted a discussion on gender equity and you chose this forum? I'm not sure whether to be grateful or to be concerned about research in your country.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]Jimmy: haha, yeah. I'm actually part of another forum that would have been much more balanced in terms of replies, but I honestly wanted to see what all of you guys thought. Like I said, it was an interesting conversation. I think my students will love it. What I'm planning to do is watch the video in the OP and then get them to read the Daughter Water article. Following that, the students will discuss their thoughts of the campaign and the intended result. We'll probably end up in a heated discussion as they are pretty intelligent. Once everyone's had their turn to discuss their views, I'll hand out a page each of this thread. Each student will have to summarise the points made in the comments and pick out the main forms of discimination touched upon. These points will then be written on the board under positives/negatives of said disciminations and why they exist. I'm thinking it'll take a whole lesson. I couldn't have done it without you guys ^^[/quote]