• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

All I know about hate is I have only ever truly personally hated 2 people.

I've disliked a fair few more

The running theme is they were all individuals, not a group they happened to belong to.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
All of that is true, but does this reaction to it make sense?
Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.​
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. As I said in an earlier post, I prefer to work WITH the men who despise toxic masculinity and who teach their children that they should treat everyone with equal respect. Two of my best male friends are that way with their children, and none of my other male friends have ever treated me or the women in our circle with anything less than respect and acknowledgement of our equality. It's a slow process, but with men like my two friends teaching their children what is, in my opinion, the correct way to treat others, there is some progress.
 
Roboramma said:
Yes.
Click to expand...


I suspect that a lot of the reported hours include commuting, golfing, company retreats and very nice meals in lovely restaurants and other such things that, while technically work, is also stuff for which most of us would be happy to pay and call leisure time.
 
Sabrina said:
Absolutely not. As I said in an earlier post, I prefer to work WITH the men who despise toxic masculinity and who teach their children that they should treat everyone with equal respect. Two of my best male friends are that way with their children, and none of my other male friends have ever treated me or the women in our circle with anything less than respect and acknowledgement of our equality. It's a slow process, but with men like my two friends teaching their children what is, in my opinion, the correct way to treat others, there is some progress.
Click to expand...

You seem to talk about these things like there arent mothers who don't

"Teach their children that they should treat everyone with equal respect."
 
3point14 said:
I suspect that a lot of the reported hours include commuting, golfing, company retreats and very nice meals in lovely restaurants and other such things that, while technically work, is also stuff for which most of us would be happy to pay and call leisure time.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of my reported hours in the past 30 years have been in conditions far more luxurious than most people have enjoyed for most of human history. But it's all been hard work, and long hours taken away from other things I could have done.
 
3point14 said:
Because it disrupts the business. No matter how well arranged, no matter how well organised, a key figure being out of the business for, what? At a minimum, say, three months, is going to impact on the business.

I realise it's not a happy thought or a useful one , but it is a fact.
Click to expand...

So if we then decide that, because women COULD get pregnant, they therefore should not be allowed in positions of responsibility and seniority, are you then going to apply that logic to the equally as likely probability that because people in general COULD get injured and have to take extensive time off (car accidents, maybe they fell and broke a leg, or suffered some injury that resulted in them having to take extensive time off of work), they should not be allowed in positions of authority as well? Oh wait; that leaves us with no one to take positions of authority, doesn't it?

The point is, a woman taking time off for maternity leave, while disruptive, is not a reason to disallow them in positions of authority, which was the original argument against the idea, I believe. Is it disruptive? Yes; I'm not arguing that. But it's equally as disruptive for someone in authority to suffer a severe injury and have to take an equal amount of time off that a woman would take for maternity leave, whether they're a male or not. Most companies take that sort of thing into account by having people available to cover down on the responsibilities of the person who is out of the office for whatever reason.
 
theprestige said:
Have you seen some of the women in the US senate? I don't think women are any better than men, for that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. Women are generally less likely to pass laws telling other women that they must submit to involuntary servitude in order to promote someone else's genetic interests.
 
cullennz said:
You seem to talk about these things like there arent mothers who don't

"Teach their children that they should treat everyone with equal respect."
Click to expand...

I read about mothers all the time who don't. Who think their little precious child is the be-all and end-all and therefore deserves more of whatever than the other children around them, thereby imparting the idea to their child that they don't have to treat others around them with respect. Are they a majority? Probably not, but they are WIDELY prevalent.
 
Sabrina said:
Most companies take that sort of thing into account by having people available to cover down on the responsibilities of the person who is out of the office for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this claim?

Edit: apologies should reiterate

To businesses having plans for individual workers disappearing for months
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Disagreed. Women are generally less likely to pass laws telling other women that they must submit to involuntary servitude in order to promote someone else's genetic interests.
Click to expand...

Is abortion the only issue you care about?
 
cullennz said:
Do you have a link to this claim?
Click to expand...

In every job I have ever had, including the retail jobs I had before and during college, had a chain of authority in place that allowed for someone to step into a position of responsibility if someone was out of the office/workplace. Every goverment agency I've ever worked at had that. I've worked for five companies, and even the smallest company (around fifty to a hundred employees) had that. Every person I've worked with who worked for other companies (as a contractor, I'm often around contractors from other companies), had the same thing. I'd say it's a widespread, common concept that doesn't exactly need a link to back it up.

Edit: saw your edits and adjusted accordingly; apologies for any abruptness that remains.
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
So if we then decide that, because women COULD get pregnant, they therefore should not be allowed in positions of responsibility and seniority, are you then going to apply that logic to the equally as likely probability that because people in general COULD get injured and have to take extensive time off (car accidents, maybe they fell and broke a leg, or suffered some injury that resulted in them having to take extensive time off of work), they should not be allowed in positions of authority as well? Oh wait; that leaves us with no one to take positions of authority, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Okay, first, calm down. I haven't stated in any way what should happen. I've stated a fact. I have made no indication at all of what should happen because of that fact.

Your points about the relative odds are just pointless. Women have all the same odds of randomly being away from work as do men and, in addition there is the increased risk that they will fall pregnant and have to not be at work.

But you seem to believe I've recommended a course of action. I haven't. I've just stated a fact. It's really, really foolish to pretend that fact doesn't exists, it just creates resentment*, I'm afraid.

I haven't in any way suggested what we, as a society, should do about this fact to remain fair to all parties in the workplace, to business owners, to mothers and to fathers.


The point is, a woman taking time off for maternity leave, while disruptive, is not a reason to disallow them in positions of authority, which was the original argument against the idea, I believe.
Click to expand...

Original argument from whom? I'm not past the 'establishing facts' bit yet. I haven't even begun to make any arguments.


Is it disruptive? Yes; I'm not arguing that.
Click to expand...

And therefore expensive. Two businesses, one that employs a man, one a woman, in high level positions. Both are perfectly healthy. One stops work for three moths to give birth. All other things being equal, the one that employs the man will make more money.

But it's equally as disruptive for someone in authority to suffer a severe injury and have to take an equal amount of time off that a woman would take for maternity leave, whether they're a male or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, men and women share that risk. Women are also at risk of falling pregnant.

Most companies take that sort of thing into account by having people available to cover down on the responsibilities of the person who is out of the office for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

But the increased risk of a lady being off work is a real thing. So often discussions like the one we're having pretend that it isn't and that's mental. What we need to do is acknowledge that ladies are more likely to be off work to give birth and accommodate that somehow.

What we don't want to do is try to live in a fantasy land where being pregnant doesn't affect a woman at all, giving birth takes no time, post natal depression or other health issues don't exist and that employing a woman comes with only the same risk of absenteeism as does employing a man. Let's not pretend that being pregnant, giving birth and the first three months of an infants life is non-disruptive, easy and wouldn't affect one's work at all. That's a gross *********** insult to mothers everywhere.












(*I'm afraid I' genuinely resent when my female colleagues take maternity leave and everyone else in the department just has to make up the hole in the workflow because my company manages natal leave very badly.)
 
3point14 said:
I suspect that a lot of the reported hours include commuting, golfing, company retreats and very nice meals in lovely restaurants and other such things that, while technically work, is also stuff for which most of us would be happy to pay and call leisure time.
Click to expand...

https://visual.ly/community/infographic/business/day-life-fortune-500-ceo

This is a breakdown of the data from another survey (not too much clarity on the number of subjects, but it's what I was able to find). I'm not seeing any golfing or lovely restaurants in there, but there's still 12 hours/day of work happening.
 
d4m10n said:
No, merely the most obvious one upon which men and women tend to have a different perspective. Numerous other examples could serve as well.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you are really just saying women tend to be more liberal than men.

If you instituted quotas, though, you are not likely to get a more liberal Congress, but merely more conservative women.
 
Sabrina said:
Have you worked in a company that fell apart because one person was out for two or three months or something? Literally every job I have ever had, including the retail jobs I had before and during college, had a chain of authority in place that allowed for someone to step into a position of responsibility if someone was out of the office/workplace. Every goverment agency I've ever worked at had that. I've worked for five companies, and even the smallest company (around fifty to a hundred employees) had that. Every person I've worked with who worked for other companies (as a contractor, I'm often around contractors from other companies), had the same thing. So no, there's not a "link" for that claim, but given that I've come into contact during the course of my professional life with nearly fifty companies or agencies who all operated under the same principle of "have someone there who can take over if someone's out", I'd say it's a widespread, common concept that doesn't exactly need a link to back it up.
Click to expand...
No

But I have known mates who own small companies having to get in temps double the money the person on unknown extended leave is on. And the people needed retraining.

Not all have been pregnancy or even women.

I don't actually have a problem with it personally as I have never had to deal with it.

But to pretend it isn't a valid concern when hirering youngish women is naive

And to pretend it isn't warranted in a small business is naive
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom