When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

I reckon more women would go for it, if it were an option men were seriously willing to consider.

This is akin to me saying...

"Workplaces would be more inclined to offer women leadership opportunities if they were more inclined to accept them."

That's not how such opportunities work...you'd have to be offered it first, then we'd see if men are declining those opportunities or taking them.

For all we know, literally 100% of men offered the opportunity to be a house husband has taken it....and yet we remain at 1-5%.

When talking about parenting, I do typically imagine it as a shared responsibility with both parents. Sure, there are single mothers by choice, but generally, if they'd found a suitable man they'd have preferred to do it with a partner.

When you said things like "women can have both a career and a family and it's not that difficult"....the part you left out was "as long as they have a man helping them."

It doesn't make much of a feminist creed, does it?

You also spoke of impoverishment.

I said "impoverished and homeless" not "impoverished or homeless"....sorry for not making it more clear.

Besides, since the data on thosw below the poverty line appears to be based on income tax it's unlikely it includes the homeless....where men are the larger population by 10-11%. If we included homeless people in the poverty study, we'd probably find men outnumbering women there as well....since the difference was a mere 1%.

Maybe, but you picked it to claim that more men exist at either extreme, in order to argue that IQ determines life outcomes. But if that were true, we wouldn't see more women in poverty than men.

Again, I said impoverished and homeless. With the difference in homelessness being 10-11% more men and that being the more extreme rate of poverty than those with a home, income, but living under the poverty line.....I'm correct about my assertion.

But if you ask me why I believe women face barriers, before anything about studies and data and so on, my answer is, because I face them.

I get that...and I thought I explained rather well why it doesn't matter. In my experience, it appears that my workplace favors women if I were to go off the data and believed in spurious concepts like proportional representation.

There's no reason to believe that all women or most women experience the same thing you have....merely because they're women.

I do not, for one second, believe I am unique in this.

I'm sure some other women in our countries have faced workplace sexism discrimination. That doesn't mean all do....nor does it mean most do. Ever since MeToo happened, I have to say it seems as if women are to blame for some of it.

Under maternity, they listed:

1. Singling out pregnant employees or new mothers for redundancy (particularly for sham redundancy situations).

This refers to getting pregnant again, right? After taking all that maternity leave....they return to work for maybe 3-6 months and then get pregnant again. They then request more maternity leave....that's the situation they're talking about, correct?

1. Mishandling requests for flexible working upon returning from maternity leave (such as unjustified refusals).

I don't know what "unjustified" means in this situation.

1. Inappropriate comments about pregnancy that amount to harassment.

I don't think women should be harassed but again, this is very vague and I don't know what it refers to.

Consider the scar study and how it might apply here.

1. Health and safety breaches against pregnant employees or new mothers (such as a failure to carry out a risk assessment).

Again, no idea what this refers to.

1. Penalising a woman who is sick during pregnancy (such as treating pregnancy-related sickness absence as standard sickness absence when evaluating their suitability for work).

I'm not sure why the cause of someone's sickness would factor into their "suitability for work" but perhaps you can explain it.

1. Failure to communicate with an employee on maternity leave (such as not informing them of opportunities).

They're on leave. I don't know if this is a normal thing in Australia, but here...I've never had a boss or manager or supervisor call me up while on leave to let me know about job opportunities. Perhaps certain companies do this....but generally speaking, this isn't a thing that happens.

1. Failure to ensure the appropriate pay is awarded during maternity leave.

That's definitely bad but it can happen to anyone on any kind of leave. It doesn't seem exclusive to maternity or women.

1. Failure to enable the employee to return to their old job after maternity leave, or another suitable and equivalent role if leave is more than 26 weeks.

This sounds like the sort of thing there's a law against. True or false?

1. Disadvantaging a mother in relation to training (such as that she might have missed while on leave).

5th or 6th one was basically the exact same thing...not informing a woman on maternity leave about work opportunities. It's all number 1 for some reason.

1. Basing a recruitment decision on an employee’s family situation (such as asking about their intentions regarding having a family, or childcare arrangements).

That sounds completely valid imo. Unless I recall incorrectly....we're talking about an employer having to allow for 52 weeks or something similarly nuts. If you're a new business, small business, or otherwise during a particularly intensive work phase....that's a very long time to have to pay an employee who contributes nothing. I don't know how it works though....so maybe it's subsidized by the state, or other employees, or part of a tax write off to minimize the risk or outright loss.

And these aren't hypothetical, these are what legal services tell us they are dealing with.

So some of these things are against the law? All of them? There's legal recourse a woman can pursue?

That's just one example. These are real barriers, and they affect so many of us.

You're talking about a year off of work....paid....as a barrier?? That's quite possibly the most backwards concept of a barrier I've ever seen. I'd call a paid year off work as a gigantic benefit.

Compare it to 1 in 6 employers automatically disqualifying you from getting the job because you're a straight white man. That's an actual barrier. The example you came up with is a year off work....paid.

If I got to choose between your barrier and mine....it's yours every day, all day, any year any time. I'd love a free year off work while still getting paid. Unbelievable.

 

[Robban]

So what do we have right now? A situation where most employment is, to be blunt, stacked to benefit the employer, with the benefit being shared with employees to the minimum extent possible that the law will allow the employer to get away with. (Or, to put that another way, employers exploiting the relative vulnerability of their employees as much as we allow them to).

Over time, we've raised the bar on what they can get away with, insisting on things like a living wage and safe working conditions, the weekend as a standard thing, annual leave, sick leave, and so on (each staunchly resisted by those claiming it was impossible or would bring the economy to a halt!). Why shouldn't flexibility (for example) be the next big shift? Covid's already got us partway there in many industries by normalising working from home, at least some of the time.

Lot's of emphasis has been put into during covid one could work from home,

a very thin comfort for the majority whom it was not possible, so that is weak.

However not to paint everything black there are exceptions, they are rare but none
the less they exist, fair companies,

I had the good fortune of being employed by one for ten years and they were like
family, amazingly so.

Still I wanted to try being independent and start my own, I did not become a millionaire but the freedom was worth much more.

 

[Paidiske]

When you said things like "women can have both a career and a family and it's not that difficult"....the part you left out was "as long as they have a man helping them."

It doesn't make much of a feminist creed, does it?

I reckon it's true for both parents that combining parenting and working is possible to do well, as a team. As a single parent of course it's harder, because there isn't that support.

But what I'm really getting at is pushing back on the idea that working mothers are bad mothers, bad employees, or both. It doesn't have to be that way.

Again, I said impoverished and homeless. With the difference in homelessness being 10-11% more men and that being the more extreme rate of poverty than those with a home, income, but living under the poverty line.....I'm correct about my assertion.

Again, it's not that simple. The reasons more men are homeless are demonstrably not just about IQ.

I get that...and I thought I explained rather well why it doesn't matter.

Absolutely nothing that you or any other person can ever say, will make me accept that my own lived experience doesn't matter.

There's no reason to believe that all women or most women experience the same thing you have....merely because they're women.

Exactly the same thing, maybe not. But variations on the theme are far, far too common. As even the most cursory bit of research will show.

Ever since MeToo happened, I have to say it seems as if women are to blame for some of it.

This refers to getting pregnant again, right? After taking all that maternity leave....they return to work for maybe 3-6 months and then get pregnant again. They then request more maternity leave....that's the situation they're talking about, correct?

No, they're talking about getting rid of women who are pregnant or on maternity leave.

I don't know what "unjustified" means in this situation.

Given that the information is drawn from two countries other than the one I live in, I'm not entirely sure about the legal frameworks. In Australia it would mean that someone who (for example) has the legal right to come back to work part-time is refused with no adequate justification given.

Again, no idea what this refers to.

In some workplaces, particular tasks or situations are unsafe for someone who's pregnant. Legally you're supposed to be able to have your work duties adjusted accordingly, but that doesn't always happen.

I'm not sure why the cause of someone's sickness would factor into their "suitability for work" but perhaps you can explain it.

I'm guessing this is similar to the above, where pregnancy isn't supposed to count against you even if it means temporary accommodations.

They're on leave. I don't know if this is a normal thing in Australia, but here...I've never had a boss or manager or supervisor call me up while on leave to let me know about job opportunities. Perhaps certain companies do this....but generally speaking, this isn't a thing that happens.

I'd imagine it's more about things like access to company-wide communications, access to your work email, and so on.

This sounds like the sort of thing there's a law against. True or false?

True, but again, all too often not enforced. Companies do the wrong thing and get away with it. I've seen it play out that way for colleagues (back when I worked in the business world).

That sounds completely valid imo.

And yet it is also illegal. But still happens.

Unless I recall incorrectly....we're talking about an employer having to allow for 52 weeks or something similarly nuts. If you're a new business, small business, or otherwise during a particularly intensive work phase....that's a very long time to have to pay an employee who contributes nothing. I don't know how it works though....so maybe it's subsidized by the state, or other employees, or part of a tax write off to minimize the risk or outright loss.

In Australia, while most of us can take up to 52 weeks of maternity leave (many of us take less), the employer doesn't pay for that. The government pays for 18 weeks at the minimum wage, which is all you're legally entitled to financially. A very few employers offer some payment alongside that, but it's not generally a thing here.

The cost of maternity leave, for a business, is usually in having to find and pay a replacement for that year. But they're not paying the person on leave and their replacement.

So some of these things are against the law? All of them? There's legal recourse a woman can pursue?

At least some of them. But as with so many of these things, you're usually up against a much more powerful, better funded opponent in court (the employer) and very few people take the risk of actually trying to hold them accountable.

You're talking about a year off of work....paid....as a barrier??

As noted, not paid. But yes, it's a massive barrier. Not because of the year off work itself, but because of all the baggage that comes with it. Because it creates the perception that women of childbearing age are a problem for the workplace, and thus we're discriminated against. Or we're "mummy-tracked." (And again, please don't tell me that's not a thing, because I've lived it and seen it play out for the people around me).

 

[stevevw]

This is irrelevant to whether or not I can cope with trans people being able to identify socially, and be treated as, their preferred gender.

Of course its relevant. If you or I or anyone as heterosexual did not want to include transpeople as possible relationship or spousal candidates because we did not affirm their identity by not wanting to date or marry them then this amounts to descrimination on the basis of gender identity.

At least this is what Trans ideology claims and if males could really become females then I think its a fair enough claim as we would not do this to other categories like race or biological sexes.

Again and again I have pointed out that sports governing bodies need to have appropriate guidelines. That doesn't impinge on everyday life for most people, though.

There can be no appropriate guidelines apart from banning transwomen altogether. No amount of hormone treatment to reduce testosterone will change the existing male development which happens after puberty where males especially in strenth based sports have greater upper body strength.

It does impinge on everyday life as the thinking that allows this to happen in the first place (transgender are real opposite sex and can enter their space) impacts people especially women in everyday situations. It also effects Womens Rights overall as now after years of stopping men dominating them males are now literally and symbolically beating women but this time males are being celebrated for doing so.

You don't have to agree with someone, to give them the space to live their own lives.

Yes you do according to the Woke. If you don't use certain language, pronouns ect you can get into big trouble. Certain language is now regarded as "not agreeing" or affirming gender and trans identities and even threatening Trans identities.

In other words Trans and GNC people not only want the right to live out their identity they want the rest of society even those with opposing beliefs to agree with their self percieved beliefs by everyone changing their own language and behaviour to suit and go along with their beliefs.

How many times have I talked about individual cubicles as one way around this?

This is unreal and won't really work. It may put off the inevitable (that this whole idea is incoherent) but it will only make things worse. First it still allows males in womens private spaces which I would say makes many women uncomfortable and intimidated. Second it only addresses one aspect of a greater problem for women such as in womens prisons, hostels and refuges and being erased in the narrative.

It also seems an incoherent way to create equality and inclusion. The idea of cubicles to avoid these issues seems to literally seperate and edivide society into groups based on gender, sex and race. That is not inclusion but division. Its not equality as it categorizes people worth according to their identity.

Its actually hyper accsentuating race, sex and gender and making it the issue instead of people seeing humans as individuals they are now tarred as ideentity groups which erase the unique individual.

I'm pretty clear on where the boundaries are, and I have been in every job I've ever had. Workplaces have policies and make those policies known. They also generally warn, counsel and provide guidance before they fire someone. Is it really so very hard?

There has been an increase in people being disciplined or even sacked or suffering reprisals for expressing their views and beliefs thanks to corporations becoming more Woke. This has resulted people being afraid to speak up or out for fear of losing their job or suffering consequences.

Some of the problem is the policies themselves so no amount of education is going to work when the policies such as DEI are wrong in the first place. Its either go along and shut up or face the consequences.

It depends on the context. If you're in an RE class discussing the theology of marriage, the answer is probably different than if you're in a workplace providing healthcare to vulnerable LGBTIQA+ folks. A bit of common sense goes a long way...

I don't think it matters what class your in, even in religious education. If the subject of marriage came up and someone expressed that marriage was between a male and female or that males cannot become females they would get in trouble.

This may even happen on your private social media and the school. Uni or business found out you could still be in trouble. This is the extent Woke and PC has infiltrated and taken hold like a religion.

I would hope all complaints would be investigated, and then action taken (or not) depending on what the investigation found.

The problem is when it comes to ideological beliefs and feelings about percieved threats its easy to make false complaints because its a subjective determination. For example pronouns. When someone uses intutitively the words male and female or mother, he, him, she, her or even biological sex ideologues percieve this as a threat to their self percieved identity and therefore object.

The problem is that some religious groups want to use "religious freedom" in ways which harm others. We need to learn not to do that.

Yes I agree but that is not the issue. The issue if a fundemental one where two opposing positions both legal are conflicting and there is no way to reconcile this. The LGBTIQ+ advocates are saying that the legal Rights and protections of Religious freedom perse act as a sword against Trans Rights. In other words the only way to resolve this is to either delete or reduce religious Rights so to accommodate Trans Rights better.

It does go some way to demonstrating that the claim that Canada is going to "criminalise Christianity" is just sensationalist nonsense. They're not going to criminalise the faith of over half their population.

Its not so obvious that they are criminalizing belief perse. Its done incrimentally through anti religious policies and laws and other regulations. Its done though a change in narrative, through biaseed treatment that is hard to prove. This is recognised through organisations who monitor Rights and Democracy where they observe religious descrimination as secular society grows and imposes their secular ideas in the public square.

The world doesn't owe it to us, to agree with us. If we can't make our case on its merits, then that's on us.

No one is asking for people to agree but to allow belief in the public square. When there is active hostility towards religion, Christianity that is different to tolerating it aned accepting it as a legal entity in the public square.

Ironically what is mostly devaluing Christianity is itself a religious belief of Wokism such as Transideology and CRT. It seems hypocritical that on the one hand Christianity is being fased out because its a threat to the ideology. On the other hand ironically it seems the world does owe it to everyone to agree with this ideology because its now being forced into education, health and law policies and into the public square.

Yes, I'm very dismissive of what seems to me like Christians indulging in paranoid siege mentality. Partly because - to pick up on just one part of this - there is no one "Christian worldview." But my word, there are a bunch of crackpot Christian worldviews out there that probably well deserve to be shut down.

In other words when theres evdience that Christianity is being persecuted and descriminated against its a conspiracy and anything they say is really about being hateful. That sounds ideological rather than factual. You fall on the side of Christians and religion making things up as though the default position is that they are inherently phobic and bigoted. Seems very one sided. Yet if anything reports show its the other way arounde but then you dismiss the facts.

Again, context is everything. If you want to spout young-earth creationism (or even one of the whackier eschatological scenarios) over your tea break, probably no one's going to care. If you want to spout demeaning comments about LGBTIQA+ folks in a professional context, then surely you can see that you put your employer in an impossible position?

So do you believe that Christian beliefs about marriage, sex, relationships, gender identity, race ect is in conflict with the secular beliefs and ideas.
Simple logic tells us they conflict and cannot exist at the same time in the public square when it comes to Rights based politics.

Nobody owes anybody a date. There's nowhere you can go to, to complain you were discriminated against as a potential romantic partner.
So again I say, some people might think poorly of you, but so what?

Does there need to be someone to complain to for it to be wrong. This is not just any case of individual opposite sex romanitc rejection but as transwomen protest a case of rejecting a legitimate and complete category of gender identity out of the dating pool. Its would be like whites saying that blacks are not a legitimate race to date or marry.

Its the principle of rejecting an entire gender or race from being affirmed and accepted. Not just that the issue also effects Lesbians as they are the ones being accused of descrimination and attacked for simply stating they prefer to date biological women. This is causing conflict and violence towards women which I would have thought was an important issue to acknowledege and address.

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

Some lesbians say they have been called transphobic for not wanting sex and relationships with trans women.

www.bbc.com

There's been a lot of argument to that effect over this thread.

I think its more a case of probably miscommunication than anyone really wanting to not see their fellow humans regardless of race, sex or gender as being any less worthy. Most people don't live that way. Its pretty hard to in todays society with more awareness of these issues. If anything I think there is the silent majority who don't really want to get involved as its either too political or for fear of getting into trouble.

What is causing arguements though is how these issues f race, sex and gender have been politicized to the point where its created divisions and wars because now race, sex and gender have become so exaggerate and sensitive that everything is seen as an attack, us verses them kind of thing.

I can assure you that my conviction that sexism and racism are alive and well, and corrosive to our society, is not in any sense an unsupported assumption.

Of course not. We are well aware of the human tendency to descriminate and be hateful, revengeful. I think its more a case of a balanced approach and seeing things. We can have the ideologues who go to one extreme and want to see race, sex and gender in everything and those who deny these altogether.

I can't start from a "neutral position" after too many years of being on the receiving end of blatant sexism. What was that quote from Archbishop Tutu? Oh yes: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Ok as mentioned before you obviously have had some bad experiences relating to this that upset you. I agree we need to acknowledge and address when people behave badly. But we also need to look at things objectively and thats not saying anything about your experiences. But rather acknowledging the fact that emotions can blur our vision.

When in this thread have you ever acknowledged a single instance you agreed merited being addressed as an actual live issue?

I have acknowledged this many times. here are a few examples

#218 Like I said I don't doubt your personal experience
#1,169 Yes we should acknowledge and address disadvantage,
#1,561 Yes if anyone is denied the right to opportunity we should address this if its based on nothing else but their gender or race
#1,624 Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative
#1,613 Once this is identified it will be self evident the systemic issues that deny these Rights and therefore need addressing.
#1,460 Second if that is the case then that is wrong as we need to listen to peoples experiences.
I want to make clear I am not dismissing your experiences. I would imagine as a pastor in a male dominated industry especially being controversial for some would cause you bad experiences aned that is wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course its relevant.

No, it's really not. There are lots of cis straight men I would never want to date or marry (or sleep with). Accepting someone as the gender they identify with doesn't entail owing them a date.

There can be no appropriate guidelines apart from banning transwomen.

Surely this depends on the sport. Right now, for example, sports such as equestrian events and sailing aren't sex segregated.

It does impinge on everyday life as the thinking that allows this to happen impacts people especially women in everyday situations.

Not really. I'm not seeing any of this impact, and I'm a woman.

Yes you do according to the Woke. if you don't use pronouns you can get into big trouble.

You don't even have to agree with someone to use their preferred pronouns. Sheesh, a bit of courtesy and thoughtfulness just isn't that hard.

First it still allows males in womens private spaces which I would say makes many women uncomfortable.

Individual cubicles, by definition, aren't shared.

Second it only addresses one aspect of a greater problem for women such as in womens prisons, hostels and refuges.

Ok, but it does address that aspect. So then we can go on to deal with prisons, hostels and refuges.

What I'm not buying here is the idea that it's not possible to accommodate any change. That's just obviously false.

The idea of cubicles and seperation to avoid these issues seems to divide society literally into groups based on gender, sex and race.

We already divide people by sex; that's why we have separate changing facilities in the first place.

Its either go along and shut up or face the consequences.

Well, yes, that's how workplace policies work. But we need to recognise that workplaces often have those policies because of their legal obligation to provide a safe workplace for everyone.

I don't think it matters what class your in, even in religious education. If the subject of marriage came up and someone expressed that marriage was between a male and female or that males cannot become females they would get in trouble.

Yeah, no. Given that that's the position on marriage of almost all denominations, I don't think you'd get into trouble for discussing that view in a class on religion.

This may even happen on your private social media and the school. Uni or business found out you could still be in trouble. This is the extent Woke and PC has infiltrated and taken hold like a religion.

While I personally have reservations with workplaces trying to control what you do when you're not at work, it's pretty standard that you not bring your employer into public disrepute. This isn't just about woke and PC; you try posting defamatory remarks about your employer on your personal social media, and that's not going to fly.

The problem is when it comes to ideological beliefs and feelings about percieved threats its easy to make false complaints because its a subjective determination. For example pronouns. When someone uses intutitively the words male and female or mother, he, him, she, her or even biological sex ideologues percieve this as a threat to their self percieved identity and therefore object.

Well, if you're misgendering someone after being asked not to, that's not a false complaint.

Yes I agree but that is not the issue.

Of course it is. If religious people didn't claim the religious right (or even obligation) to treat LGBTIQA+ folks badly, we'd never have come to this point.

The LGBTIQ+ advocates are saying that the legal Rights and protections of Religious freedom perse act as a sword against Trans Rights.

Having been part of the government consultation around the proposed bill, I'm going to say it's a little more nuanced than that.

In other words the only way to resolve this is to either delete or reduce religious Rights so to accommodate Trans Rights better.

No, that really isn't the only way to resolve this.

No one is asking for people to agree but to allow belief in the public square.

Well, congratulations. Belief is allowed in the public square. It's even vocal.

In other words when theres evdience that Christianity is being persecuted and descriminated against its a conspiracy and anything they say is really about being hateful.

Look, there are places in the world where Christians are really being persecuted. Being martyred. Being thrown in prison for proclaiming that Jesus is Lord.

Australia just is not one of them. What we're dealing with is not persecution. It is, to some extent, loss of historic privilege. The days when - for example - the Catholic and Anglican archbishops of Sydney could go and meet with the Prime Minister and exit his office with a handshake agreement on whatever their issue of the day was, are gone.

But not being automatically deferred to and agreed with is not persecution. Being asked to cope with being only one strand of a pluralistic secular society, not all of which agrees with us on everything or even anything much, is not persecution. Being expected to be able to to function politely and appropriately in secular environments like workplaces, is not persecution.

And I find the positioning of it as such highly irritating, both because it trivialises real persecution, and it reinforces the narrative that Christians are really interested in controlling the society around us.

So do you believe that Christian beliefs about marriage, sex, relationships, gender identity, race ect is in conflict with the secular beliefs and ideas.

I believe that some Christians hold beliefs about marriage, sex, relationships, gender identity, race, and so on, which are in conflict with other beliefs held by some people in the wider community. I don't see it as a neat polarisation into two sets of views, though, as there are many different Christian views and many different non-Christian views.

Simple logic tells us they conflict and cannot exist at the same time in the public square when it comes to Rights based politics.

Whether they conflict or not, of course they can exist at the same time in the public square, if we can be adult enough to negotiate living in a pluralistic society.

Its the principle of rejecting an entire gender or race from being affirmed and accepted.

Maybe, but even so, I come back around to, nobody is owed a date. You might not like that many people don't find you attractive (generic "you"), but no rights are being violated in that experience.

This is causing conflict and violence towards women which I would have thought was an important issue to acknowledege and address.

Well, violence for sure needs to be addressed. I'm not sure that's particularly a trans issue, though.

I think its more a case of probably miscommunication

No, I don't think so. Some posts have been very clear.

I have acknowledged this many times. here are a few examples

#218 Like I said I don't doubt your personal experience
#1,169 Yes we should acknowledge and address disadvantage,
#1,561 Yes if anyone is denied the right to opportunity we should address this if its based on nothing else but their gender or race
#1,624 Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative
#1,613 Once this is identified it will be self evident the systemic issues that deny these Rights and therefore need addressing.
#1,460 Second if that is the case then that is wrong as we need to listen to peoples experiences.

These are all very vague or conditional statements. And when I have asked you what concrete action you were willing to support to address these issues, I have not seen you put forward a single one.

So I'll ask again, especially after so much detail has been provided about people's experiences, what concrete action are you willing to support, to address the ongoing barriers faced by women or other disempowered or marginalised groups?

 

[rjs330]

, you know, deal with the fact that the world is full of diversity and a bit of acceptance and flexibility go a long way in loving our neighbours.

Acceptance and flexibility is not being asked for. A complete altering of society and strict adherence to the belief system is what is being demanded. You are being totally disingenuous here and spreading misinformation.

 

[rjs330]

You don't have to agree with someone, to give them the space to live their own lives.

They are not asking for space. They are demanding and invasion of women's spaces and they are demanding that you agree with them. Dissent is not allowed. You must comply. Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

How many times have I talked about individual cubicles as one way around this?

See, you do know they are not wanting to just live their lives and have their space. They are wanting everyone else to change their lives for them. Like making businesses schools sporting arenas etc all alter their bathrooms and lockers rooms just for them. And for the umpteenth time, how much would that cost? You still haven't answered that question. your church is pretty small. Have you altered your bathrooms yet? If not, why not? Vause it sounds like you have trans people in your church.

Nobody owes anybody a date. There's nowhere you can go to, to complain you were discriminated against as a potential romantic partner.

So again I say, some people might think poorly of you, but so what?

This goes to show how transphobic you are. Cause according to them you do owe them a date and it you don't date them you are transphobic.

can't start from a "neutral position" after too many years of being on the receiving end of blatant sexism. What was that quote from Archbishop Tutu? Oh yes: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

You don't want us to dismiss you experiences and yet you turn around and totally dismiss other women's experiences. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[rjs330]

And yet I see it being successfully implemented in various places. Lots of public swimming pools and the like now have individual changing cubicles. It's not really different than individual toilets, even cheaper because it doesn't need the plumbing. They have individual shower cubicles already (or anywhere I've ever been has). It's not that hard; it's already happening. So I'm not really convinced by fussing that it's not possible or too expensive, especially if we just make it part of how we set up these spaces into the future.

Lots huh? How many? And in those places do they allow men and women in the same room? I've been to some places that had individual spaces and showers too. They typically tend to be very small places and still require men and women to separate. You are not showering in one stall next to a woman.

You still haven't stated how much it would cost to do what you want. What's interesting is that you say most women will never encounter such a situation so it's no big deal. Then you turn around and state we should make places all build these rooms for the time when on rare occurrence a man wants to use a woman's space. You claim no women's rights are being erased and then want to alter all of society for something you say doesn't exist. In interesting position to take.

No. I'm saying this is just not the problem it's being made out to be. And that the people driving that narrative, have an agenda that has nothing to do with actually supporting women's rights.

What an interesting assumption. Care to prove your point?

You're claiming that all the things I've listed aren't real or don't happen?

Because if you are, we're back to, if you're just going to deny reality, there's no basis for discussion.

I'm not claiming nothing has happened to you personally. Quite frankly as much as a feminist you are you really picked the wrong church. Did you not know the church you chose to be a part of had those rules, doctrines and beliefs? Were you caught off guard? Or did you know but chose to ignore that anyway?

And Ana has gone a long way to prove you wrong on many points. It seems you are the one that's denying reality.

It's like racism. Does it affect some people? Sure. Does sexism affect some people. Sure. What's interesting is that you only care about one side. Racism affects white people but you do t care about that. Sexism affects men, but you don't care about that either. Transgenderism affects women, but you don't care about that. Why do you only care about one side?

You see we care about both sides. We don't want whites or blacks to be discriminated against. We don't want men or women to be discriminated against. We don't want trans people or women to be bullied.

That might take the edge off, but it hasn't solved the problem.

What problem? You haven't shown a single barrier to women being successful, except maybe in your own church that you chose to b part of.

 

[rjs330]

You can only have both if one parent stays home" sounded pretty absolute.

I'm referring to best practice. It's pretty much a fact that if you have two parents working part time so that the child can always have a parent around, they will earn less money to supply the needs of the family. If both parents work full time one at night and one during the day the kid loses out because one parent has to sleep. One parent can work full time and the other part time so a parent is around all the time. So one parent IS staying home all the time. As I said I don't think putting a child in daycare two days a week is a terrible thing. At least once a child reaches a certain age.

Which would be a good reason to support more flexible work options...

Which I have no problem with it you can work it out. Demanding it is another thing all together. Because in so many jobs it wouldn't work.

Even then they weren't always family. It's that whole "it takes a village" thing. And if your childcare worker, family daycare worker, nanny or babysitter is part of a robust village around a child... that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Even then they weren't always family. It's that whole "it takes a village" thing. And if your childcare worker, family daycare worker, nanny or babysitter is part of a robust village around a child... that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

No it doesn't take a village. It takes a family. The kids were not being taken care of childcare workers, family daycares, nanny's or babysitters. Most kids were home, working in the family business or helping the parents. The whole it takes a village concept is a bunch of hogwash of the left who wants to pawn their kids off on someone else to raise.

It's about how we structure systems for the benefit of everyone. There's nothing narcissistic about that.

If course it is. Because by systems you mean laws and government requirements. Forcing everyone else to accommodate you and your choices. That's the narcissist in people. I made a choice and now everyone has to accommodate me and make my life comfortable as I want it to be. It's without a doubt narcissistic. That's what trans rights are about. And it's what you are wanting from everyone else with your "systems".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I reckon it's true for both parents that combining parenting and working is possible to do well, as a team.

Well that's the difference....there's no male equivalent of feminism. There's no generalized male movement telling men that they don't need women in their lives.

As a single parent of course it's harder, because there isn't that support.

Ok...so we can agree that single parents have a harder time....because when you're working and raising a kid by yourself, you don't have as much time to raise a kid....

Yet the idea of a working wife and mother not being as effective or capable as a housewife/mother is somehow ridiculous even though it's the exact same principle. The housewife/parent has more time with the children than parents who both work....but suddenly that extra time doesn't translate to better parenting.

But what I'm really getting at is pushing back on the idea that working mothers are bad mothers, bad employees, or both. It doesn't have to be that way.

I'm not saying they're necessarily bad....just not as good.

Again, it's not that simple. The reasons more men are homeless are demonstrably not just about IQ.

Much like your article that said "having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success"...you're misrepresenting the argument. Just because IQ is a strong predictive factor doesn't make it the only factor.

Absolutely nothing that you or any other person can ever say, will make me accept that my own lived experience doesn't matter.

Right...well I'm sure it matters to you. It doesn't matter to reality or the truth though.

Anecdotal v. Empirical Evidence - Anecdotal Evidence is a Poor Way to Argue

Advocacy based on anecdotal evidence is a very poor way to argue. Back up your argument with data, and not your personal experiences.

mlelawfirm.com

Anecdotes are unreliable evidence - Students 4 Best Evidence

Anecdotes are unreliable evidence. Claims about treatments can be misleading if they are based on stories from individuals rather than systematically tested

s4be.cochrane.org

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data

www.scientificamerican.com

Like I've already pointed out....when you first used a personal anecdote to describe the discrimination women faced in the workplace....I replied with a personal anecdote that contradicted yours. Your response was an immediate dismissal of my anecdote with the claim that I must have lived a "sheltered life"...as if your experience was the rule not the exception, and my experience was the exception not the rule.

I know you have no difficulty at all completely dismissing the "lived experiences" of others. The new left likes to call personal anecdotes "lived experiences" and tells its adherents that lived experiences aren't just good evidence....but shouldn't be questioned. "Believe women" was the rallying cry of the MeToo movement and it destroyed the lives of innocent men. I recall an example of this that caused a man to not only lose his job....but he ended his life shortly afterwards. It was then that a few of his friends began producing evidence that his accuser had lied or badly distorted the facts of her lived experiences....something she had done in the past for personal gain (because the new left celebrates victims and doesn't question lived experience that's comports to their politics).

Since that first example you've leaned on your "personal experiences" the entire discussion. Here's the problem with that...

1. I try hard to avoid dogmatic thinking. Your lived experiences don't mean anything to me.

2. I'm fully aware that "lived experience" = anecdotal evidence and as someone who tries hard to think both logically and rationally (not dogmaticly) I have no problem dismissing anecdotal evidence.

3. The links above provide just a tiny amount of the vast research into why anecdotal evidence is literally the worst kind of evidence possible. The new left's overreliance on "lived experiences" and inability to question them is directly to blame for its new faith based beliefs (like women having a penis), it's loss of intellectuals and scholars, it's inability to debate, and it's authoritarian tendency to silence anyone who dares to disagree.

I'm an atheist on a Christian forum. I've watched more people claim lived experiences that I don't believe than I can count...and I've seen them do it for no better reason than a disagreement over reality wasn't going their way.

We're discussing the truth here. We're discussing whether or not women face certain barriers in the workplace that men don't. Your "lived experiences" do not matter. I suggest you read the links provided if you still don't understand why. I know you can dismiss lived experiences....you dismissed mine after all....now just dismiss your own.

Exactly the same thing, maybe not. But variations on the theme are far, far too common. As even the most cursory bit of research will show.

I gave you 1 survey which provided direct evidence of discrimination. The great part about it is that it doesn't rely upon the straight white men who were discriminated against to perceive or recognize that they were discriminated against by their potential employers. We don't have to consider the possibility that they perceived something that didn't actually happen.

Roll your eyes all you want. Research had shown that male employers are now less likely to mentor or even spend time alone with female employees. Those are the consequences of insisting that women should be believed despite a lack of evidence. Men lost their livelihoods and careers over pure fiction or badly distorted tales of awkward dates. Men didn't do that....women did.

No, they're talking about getting rid of women who are pregnant or on maternity leave.

That sounds more like #8...so I'm inclined to think this is something different.

Given that the information is drawn from two countries other than the one I live in, I'm not entirely sure about the legal frameworks. In Australia it would mean that someone who (for example) has the legal right to come back to work part-time is refused with no adequate justification given.

So, we're talking about a full time position that they want to come back and work part time?

In some workplaces, particular tasks or situations are unsafe for someone who's pregnant.

Right.

Legally you're supposed to be able to have your work duties adjusted accordingly, but that doesn't always happen.

Sure....but what if there's no way to adjust the position enough to make it safe?

I'm guessing this is similar to the above, where pregnancy isn't supposed to count against you even if it means temporary accommodations.

Yeah again....I'm not certain why it should be treated different. Let's say I've got a mild stomach flu and have been throwing up throughout the day while I'm on the phone doing sales. Why would a pregnant woman throwing up because she's pregnant be given accommodations that I'm not given?

I'd imagine it's more about things like access to company-wide communications, access to your work email, and so on.

If you're on leave though...and won't be back for months....I'm not sure why it's important you get the email about Jane's retirement party.

True, but again, all too often not enforced. Companies do the wrong thing and get away with it. I've seen it play out that way for colleagues (back when I worked in the business world).

But since it's illegal....women can seek justice when it happens. They have an avenue of recourse they can pursue.

And yet it is also illegal. But still happens.

Well the discussion isn't over the legality of something but whether or not it constituted a barrier.

Imagine I own a hotel that's recently been constructed and need a full time manager to get everyone and everything involved coordinated across every shift and team working the hotel...the front desk, the reservations, the renting out of corporate spaces, the concierge, everything. I hire a woman, she's pregnant within the first month and will be off for basically the next year on maternity leave. Now I have to pay her and find a new manager....and fast. I hire another woman (because I don't discriminate) and I don't ask about her plans for a family (because it's also illegal) and 2 months later she's pregnant and I have to keep paying her and find a new manager again....

I would have to be insane to hire another woman at this point because I'm about to go out of business due to this rather silly law. Is the Australian government subsidizing my losses? Can I sue them when my business fails? It may be against the law to make these considerations when hiring....but that doesn't mean it's not an extremely stupid law.

In Australia, while most of us can take up to 52 weeks of maternity leave (many of us take less), the employer doesn't pay for that. The government pays for 18 weeks at the minimum wage, which is all you're legally entitled to financially. A very few employers offer some payment alongside that, but it's not generally a thing here.

Ok...so only 18 weeks are paid for and the burden is shifted to the taxpayers. That makes more sense.

The cost of maternity leave, for a business, is usually in having to find and pay a replacement for that year. But they're not paying the person on leave and their replacement.

Gotcha. This actually helps explain the lack of women in leadership positions in Australia. When you consider the example above....I only need 1 general manager. If I'm required to hire someone new to fill the position and it's not a part time position, women are simply going to make it more difficult for the employer because of these benefits they have.

At least some of them. But as with so many of these things, you're usually up against a much more powerful, better funded opponent in court (the employer) and very few people take the risk of actually trying to hold them accountable.

Right....so it is in most matters of justice. You need evidence. I can claim someone stole my prized Picasso, but without evidence that I owned one and evidence the accused stole it...I'm probably going to lose the case.

As noted, not paid. But yes, it's a massive barrier.

18 weeks are paid....3.5 months. It's not a barrier, it's a benefit.

Not because of the year off work itself, but because of all the baggage that comes with it.

The child?

Because it creates the perception that women of childbearing age are a problem for the workplace, and thus we're discriminated against.

Consider the hypothetical above...

I need 1 general manager. The woman I hire goes on maternity leave 2 months into the job for nearly a year. The guy I hire to do the work in the meantime us doing just as well as the female and basically exceeding all expectations. A year later she's ready to return to the job. There's only need for 1 gm...only pay for 1 gm. Who is it unfair to then....her or the guy who has been doing her job for a year that I now have to fire according to the law? Even worse, if she only wants to return part time....not only am I supposed to take her back, but I'm supposed to do so part time and find another gm who wants to work part time (which may be either very difficult or unlikely to fill with a competent employee).

The guy I had to let go....the one who did the hard work of getting everything running well for the first year....is the one getting the short end of the stick here. He's the one losing out. He's done the hard work, he's been dedicated and loyal, but he needs the pay of a full time job so he has to go so I can accommodate someone far less deserving.

The problem isn't that women face a barrier....it's that they've been given far too many privileges and benefits related to maternity leave. All these privileges and benefits disrupt the work environment for employers, and frankly, for the employees who end up doing their work while they're absent. It's no wonder that employers would not only try to avoid these problems or otherwise keep employees who have shown they deserve the job from merit...but it also helps explain why employers wouldn't want women in leadership positions unless they're well past childbearing age.

I imagine a lot of these problems in distributing these massively unfair benefits that women enjoy would disappear if your nation scaled back maternity leave benefits significantly. Perhaps if leave was cut to 18 weeks only, they were allowed to take a different part time job if one were avaliable and they originally applied for a full time job, and if their replacement outworked them they could take a different position even if the pay was lower, we would probably see more employers complying with the full maternity leave benefits and less employers trying to cheat women out of the full maternity leave benefits.

Regardless though....you're describing a benefit. If you got 25% or 100% of a benefit....it's still a benefit, not an obstacle.

1 in 6 employers saying "we're not going to hire straight white men" is an obstacle. There's no upside for straight white men. They didn't do anything to deserve the obstacle....it's simply the fashionable racism and sexism on the left these days.

Or we're "mummy-tracked." (And again, please don't tell me that's not a thing, because I've lived it and seen it play out for the people around me).

I don't have to tell you it's not a thing...there's no evidence provided for it in the article. Maybe it's a thing...but why would I go off of what one gal writing for the HuffPo says? Soozi Baggs....author and freelance writer....doesn't sound like she even has a job where one punches a clock. It sounds like she has a job writing feminist claptrap from home for a publication that caters to far left narratives. I can't imagine what life is like for these people who imagine themselves overly competent...consistently undervalued....and perpetually held down by malevolent forces. You might think that because of the near constant complaints and lack of accountability or even a notion of self responsibility....people would eventually get tired of listening to these people and simply tell them that perhaps they simply aren't the amazing dynamos they imagine themselves to be...and that they're just overrating themselves because everyone around them has been overrating them either because they're women or simply because they know that telling them the truth will only result in accusations of misogyny and sexism. Perhaps we should have a day every year where coworkers are randomly assigned peers to rate as coworkers anonymously....without censorship or reprisal. Everyone will get the chance to find out what their peers really think of them....without the possibility of being punished for it if anyone's feelings are hurt. That way, people would at least have a chance to see if how they view themselves is remotely close to how they are viewed by others. It's one of the very few advantages to being a man in the workplace in my experience.

 

[Paidiske]

You are being totally disingenuous here and spreading misinformation.

From my point of view, that's what some other people in this thread are doing.

They are not asking for space. They are demanding and invasion of women's spaces and they are demanding that you agree with them. Dissent is not allowed. You must comply.

And yet I see plenty of people dissenting, so... this doesn't seem quite right.

You still haven't answered that question. your church is pretty small. Have you altered your bathrooms yet? If not, why not? Vause it sounds like you have trans people in your church.

To be really honest, my church hasn't even got its act together to make their toilets accessible for folks with disabilities. They're well behind the curve on maintaining their facilities. But amazingly, the trans people in my church seem to have no issue around their use, nor does anyone else seem to have an issue around who uses what space. It's a non-issue here.

You don't want us to dismiss you experiences and yet you turn around and totally dismiss other women's experiences.

No. I dismiss the claim that other women's experiences mean that we cannot accommodate transgendered people in an appropriate way.

Lots huh? How many?

I can't find any data, but they seem to be pretty standard here. Used one myself yesterday.

And in those places do they allow men and women in the same room? I've been to some places that had individual spaces and showers too. They typically tend to be very small places and still require men and women to separate. You are not showering in one stall next to a woman.

Different places have different set ups.

You still haven't stated how much it would cost to do what you want.

Because there are ways costs can be made not prohibitive, and I find focussing on the cost to be completely missing the point.

What's interesting is that you say most women will never encounter such a situation so it's no big deal. Then you turn around and state we should make places all build these rooms for the time when on rare occurrence a man wants to use a woman's space. You claim no women's rights are being erased and then want to alter all of society for something you say doesn't exist. In interesting position to take.

I'm basically refuting the demonising of transwomen and the refusal to consider ways in which everyone's needs can be met. I don't care whether we come up with this or another solution, my basic position is that blanket refusal to consider any possible solutions is both ridiculous and petty.

What an interesting assumption. Care to prove your point?

Tell you what. Find me one place in this thread where the people carrying on about how terrible trans people are, support one single concrete practical suggestion to improve the lot of women. Rather than arguing against them at every turn.

Quite frankly as much as a feminist you are you really picked the wrong church. Did you not know the church you chose to be a part of had those rules, doctrines and beliefs? Were you caught off guard? Or did you know but chose to ignore that anyway?

Unfortunately, vocation doesn't always neatly fit our preferences. God called me here, and I have every right (and a fair share of responsibility) to work within the structures and polity of this church for its betterment, which I am doing.

And Ana has gone a long way to prove you wrong on many points.

Rather unconvincingly.

It's like racism. Does it affect some people? Sure. Does sexism affect some people. Sure. What's interesting is that you only care about one side. Racism affects white people but you do t care about that. Sexism affects men, but you don't care about that either. Transgenderism affects women, but you don't care about that. Why do you only care about one side?

If I ever see an instance where racism negatively affects white people, I'll be ready to consider what might be done about it. That's not something I see in real life. I do see instances where sexist stereotypes and the like affect men, and I've discussed that in this thread, (see the long discussion about toxic masculinity), so I'm not wearing that argument.

I care about where I see negative impact due to injustice.

You see we care about both sides.

Really? I'll ask you the same question I asked steve. What concrete practical action are you willing to support, to address the ongoing barriers faced by women?

What problem? You haven't shown a single barrier to women being successful, except maybe in your own church that you chose to b part of.

I've linked many examples, but since you've apparently ignored them all, try here: The 9 barriers blocking women's progression in your organisation - Shape Talent

I'm referring to best practice. It's pretty much a fact that if you have two parents working part time so that the child can always have a parent around, they will earn less money to supply the needs of the family. If both parents work full time one at night and one during the day the kid loses out because one parent has to sleep. One parent can work full time and the other part time so a parent is around all the time. So one parent IS staying home all the time. As I said I don't think putting a child in daycare two days a week is a terrible thing. At least once a child reaches a certain age.

The point, though, seems to be that there's more than one way to share parenting and working, without that negatively impacting on the quality of parenting.

No it doesn't take a village. .. The whole it takes a village concept is a bunch of hogwash of the left who wants to pawn their kids off on someone else to raise.

I guess that's why the saying comes from African village communities.

One result of the industrial revolution has been that our "villages" and extended networks have been disrupted and restructured. I don't have a problem with bringing more caring people into a child's life, even if some of them are paid (do we really imagine that extended family weren't paid in kind, back in the day?) It's part of that thing about we can be flexible and creative and do things differently without the sky falling in.

If course it is. Because by systems you mean laws and government requirements. Forcing everyone else to accommodate you and your choices. That's the narcissist in people. I made a choice and now everyone has to accommodate me and make my life comfortable as I want it to be. It's without a doubt narcissistic. That's what trans rights are about. And it's what you are wanting from everyone else with your "systems".

Not just me and my choices, though, but provide maximum opportunities for everyone. And if employers aren't willing to accommodate the wellbeing of their employees, then they should be made to.

Well that's the difference....there's no male equivalent of feminism. There's no generalized male movement telling men that they don't need women in their lives.

MGTOW? (Not that I agree that feminism is telling women they don't need men in their lives, so much as that being dependent on men leaves us in a very unwisely vulnerable position).

Ok...so we can agree that single parents have a harder time....because when you're working and raising a kid by yourself, you don't have as much time to raise a kid....

Or, a lot of single parents end up with their working lives curtailed.

Yet the idea of a working wife and mother not being as effective or capable as a housewife/mother is somehow ridiculous even though it's the exact same principle. The housewife/parent has more time with the children than parents who both work....but suddenly that extra time doesn't translate to better parenting.

I think there are different concepts being conflated there. FWIW, I agree that people who work aren't going to put the same time and effort into homemaking as a stay-at-home parent. (My mother used to spend a day a week ironing; I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I used my iron, for example). But I don't agree that not ironing the sheets amounts to worse parenting. I've seen studies that show that working parents today spend more time engaged directly with their children than stay-at-home parents did in the sixties.

Much like your article that said "having a high IQ doesn't guarantee success"...you're misrepresenting the argument. Just because IQ is a strong predictive factor doesn't make it the only factor.

No, but I'm arguing it's not particularly about IQ. One example I gave is that homelessness services for women are much better than for men. So the women who would be homeless have a better buffer against that, and a better pathway out of it, reducing the number of homeless women. Nothing to do with IQ; everything to do with structures and services.

(And yes, we should be doing more to provide those kinds of supports and services to men).

We're discussing the truth here. We're discussing whether or not women face certain barriers in the workplace that men don't. Your "lived experiences" do not matter.

You can claim that they don't matter. But they're the barriers I've faced, as a woman. They matter deeply to me, and are the reason, above all, that I'm not prepared to let the matter go. Whatever dismissive statements or claims you make, they're not going to change where I stand on this.

That sounds more like #8...so I'm inclined to think this is something different.

As I understand it, it's the situation where someone is on, or approaching, maternity leave, and is targetted for redundancy.

So, we're talking about a full time position that they want to come back and work part time?

Or possibly where they've been working part time and are told when they come back it has to be full time or nothing.

Sure....but what if there's no way to adjust the position enough to make it safe?

You're supposed to be given alternative duties.

Yeah again....I'm not certain why it should be treated different. Let's say I've got a mild stomach flu and have been throwing up throughout the day while I'm on the phone doing sales. Why would a pregnant woman throwing up because she's pregnant be given accommodations that I'm not given?

I think it's more, say you've developed a condition where you won't be able to continue in the role. You might be removed from that role. But if the condition is pregnancy related, and therefore temporary, they're not supposed to lose the role on that basis, but have temporary accommodation.

If you're on leave though...and won't be back for months....I'm not sure why it's important you get the email about Jane's retirement party.

It might be more important to get the email about upcoming positions vacant.

It's not something I found a huge problem myself, but other women have found being cut completely out of the loop a real difficulty.

But since it's illegal....women can seek justice when it happens. They have an avenue of recourse they can pursue.

Mostly unsuccessfully, so it's no real protection.

Gotcha. This actually helps explain the lack of women in leadership positions in Australia.

Yes. Employers do discriminate on this basis even though they're not supposed to. Hence: a barrier faced by women.

18 weeks are paid....3.5 months. It's not a barrier, it's a benefit.

First off, usually paid at far lower than what you actually normally earn. Secondly, as I said, it's a barrier not because of the leave itself, but because of the structural and systemic problems around that.

Consider the hypothetical above...

I need 1 general manager. The woman I hire goes on maternity leave 2 months into the job for nearly a year. The guy I hire to do the work in the meantime us doing just as well as the female and basically exceeding all expectations. A year later she's ready to return to the job. There's only need for 1 gm...only pay for 1 gm. Who is it unfair to then....her or the guy who has been doing her job for a year that I now have to fire according to the law? Even worse, if she only wants to return part time....not only am I supposed to take her back, but I'm supposed to do so part time and find another gm who wants to work part time (which may be either very difficult or unlikely to fill with a competent employee).

No. You don't have to fire him. He was only ever on a maternity leave contract, which is not renewed if she comes back. That's normal here, and well understood.

And if she wants to job share and there's no one to share it with, well, that's unfortunate. But if she wants to job share and there's someone capable to share it with (perhaps he'd rather half the role than none of it?) then great; everyone wins. Including you, who gets the benefit of the strengths of two different people in play.

The guy I had to let go....the one who did the hard work of getting everything running well for the first year....is the one getting the short end of the stick here. He's the one losing out.

He took a maternity leave contract knowing the deal. It's not really reasonable for him to complain when that contract reaches its end date; he's had a year or nearly a year's work on agreed terms, and he's had the benefit of the experience and presumably a great reference from you.

...so I can accommodate someone far less deserving.

The problem isn't that women face a barrier....it's that they've been given far too many privileges and benefits related to maternity leave. All these privileges and benefits disrupt the work environment for employers, and frankly, for the employees who end up doing their work while they're absent. It's no wonder that employers would not only try to avoid these problems or otherwise keep employees who have shown they deserve the job from merit...but it also helps explain why employers wouldn't want women in leadership positions unless they're well past childbearing age.

I imagine a lot of these problems in distributing these massively unfair benefits that women enjoy would disappear if your nation scaled back maternity leave benefits significantly. Perhaps if leave was cut to 18 weeks only, they were allowed to take a different part time job if one were avaliable and they originally applied for a full time job, and if their replacement outworked them they could take a different position even if the pay was lower, we would probably see more employers complying with the full maternity leave benefits and less employers trying to cheat women out of the full maternity leave benefits.

You are doing an excellent job of illustrating the problem and the attitudes which create the barriers women face.

Maybe it's a thing...but why would I go off of what one gal writing for the HuffPo says?

I picked that one because it was a particularly good description. If you want something a bit more academic, try here: The “mommy track” in the workplace. Evidence from a large French firm

 

[stevevw]

No, it's really not. There are lots of cis straight men I would never want to date or marry (or sleep with). Accepting someone as the gender they identify with doesn't entail owing them a date.

Your missing the point. The reason why straight women don't want to date transmen is because they don't count them in the first place as potential dates thus rejecting their identity as being real. In other words they are treating transmen as different to biological men based on their gender/sex identity. Under the law that would be regarded as descrimination. The same for blokes who don't want to date transwomen.

This is one of the issues Transpeople complain about. That they are not taken seriously or treated as the real sex when it comes to romantic relationships. They say that a biological male or female should treat them like they are the real opposite sex and be willing to date, sleep with them and marry them I guess if it came to that.

Surely this depends on the sport. Right now, for example, sports such as equestrian events and sailing aren't sex segregated.

Well yeah some sports don't require sex as the determining factor. But that still doesn't solve the problem as there are lots of sports where if you did not segregate sexes women would end up being dominated by males which would not be good for women. That would then be erasing women from most sports.

You don't even have to agree with someone to use their preferred pronouns. Sheesh, a bit of courtesy and thoughtfulness just isn't that hard.

Its not about courtesy. Pronouns represent the ideological belief that gender identity is entirely a subjective yet real entity in the world that must be acknowledged through language, laws and norms. So going along with the language (pronouns, pregnant people, menstrators ect) is supporting and going along with the ideology behind it.

Its asking people to give up their own beliefs and take on the subjective ideological belief of the persons identity. Its also a greater matter of free speech.

Individual cubicles, by definition, aren't shared.

But cubicles like individual showers are usually within male or female change rooms. But yeah technically we could make adjustments. maybe have open access individual cubicles with a shower in each. I still think it makes for a very cold and exclusive environment where everyone is forced to change the entire to accomodate. Not that we don't want to accommodate differences.

But at what cost. I think we lose something when we take this option as change rooms and the like are an imtimate place and safe space where women for example can gather, help each other, chat, relax even. Why not just make seperate change rooms for transpeople altogether. They have their private space as they may have particular private matters they need help with and are able to share with others privately.

Ok, but it does address that aspect. So then we can go on to deal with prisons, hostels and refuges.
What I'm not buying here is the idea that it's not possible to accommodate any change. That's just obviously false.

Well as mentioned above it doesn't really address things. It does facility wise but at a cost to perhaps a greater freedom and Rights for women or anyone for that matter.

But I agree that we should talk about these issues to find solutions. I just don't think at this point, not because there are no solutions but because there is a fundemental difference in belief about what is right which conflicts for specific situations where both want to occupy and have the same rights and freedoms at the same time. Siding with one right automatically deminishes or denies the others rights.

We already divide people by sex; that's why we have separate changing facilities in the first place.

Biological sex differences is a reality and gender identity is a different issue altogether because its a subjective determination and there is no way of determining the differences apart from self identity.

Well, yes, that's how workplace policies work. But we need to recognise that workplaces often have those policies because of their legal obligation to provide a safe workplace for everyone.

I agree policies and ethical codes of conduct are important. But once again the problem is not in the codes or policies themselves because they are based on law and Rights but on the application of those coedes and policies where they are applied unevenly. This is mainly because the State has not clarified how it should be applied when Rights conflict. As a result one sides Rights are often upheld at the expense of others.

Yeah, no. Given that that's the position on marriage of almost all denominations, I don't think you'd get into trouble for discussing that view in a class on religion.

I wasn't talking about a religious class where only religious people attend though hypothetically a non believer may attend. I was referring to religious education in public education where its more likely that a trans or GNC person may attend. Even within a history class where religion and marriage came up or a science class where sex came up.

While I personally have reservations with workplaces trying to control what you do when you're not at work, it's pretty standard that you not bring your employer into public disrepute. This isn't just about woke and PC; you try posting defamatory remarks about your employer on your personal social media, and that's not going to fly.

of course thats obvious, if you directly undermine your employer on social media by denegrating their brand, company or management. But that is not how PC and Woke work. It brings into the line of fire peoples beliefs and political views and the language expressed. People have not done anything wrong apart from expressing a different belief ande idea from the Woke companies and ideologues.

This goes back to how Rights conflict and depending on which side you are on and who has the power one side will win and the other loses.

Well, if you're misgendering someone after being asked not to, that's not a false complaint.

It is in the sense that the idea behind asking even forcing people by guilt to go along with something that may not even be real in the first place. Especially when it comes to biological sex and gender where reality tells us what we observe and know as fact.

Of course it is. If religious people didn't claim the religious right (or even obligation) to treat LGBTIQA+ folks badly, we'd never have come to this point.

Well yes but thats not just a religion is it. Its a human thing where everyone feels threatened by difference even a state of fallen nature. But yes we had to develop codees and Rights so that humans could exist together.

Having been part of the government consultation around the proposed bill, I'm going to say it's a little more nuanced than that.
No, that really isn't the only way to resolve this.

Of course nuances. I like how this is always brought up when things get too hard. This is coming from Trans people themselves. That is what they are telling the government in relation to their Rights.

Consider the logic. One the one side is Trans identity that wants the Right tyo be recognised as a real identity of the opposite sex. On the other are Christian beliefs which don't recognise the Trans identity as real. In fact no just Christians but many non Christion professionals or even gays and lesbians.

So these positions cut against each other and theres no way to reconcile unless people are willing to give up their belief. Sure we can learn to live with each other and allow people to express themselves however they want. But the catch is "so long as that doesn't infringe on anyone elses Rights". Thats the unresolved issues when it comes to sex and gender identity and Religious and political freedoms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

MGTOW? (Not that I agree that feminism is telling women they don't need men in their lives, so much as that being dependent on men leaves us in a very unwisely vulnerable position).

Not even remotely close to 3rd wave feminism. Not in size .. not in scope...not in supporters. I don't know what they actually advocate. I doubt there's MGTOW classes or msko_kb

Or, a lot of single parents end up with their working lives curtailed.

Right, because they're no longer able to dedicate them to work how they did prior to children.

I think there are different concepts being conflated there. FWIW, I agree that people who work aren't going to put the same time and effort into homemaking as a stay-at-home parent. (My mother used to spend a day a week ironing; I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I used my iron, for example). But I don't agree that not ironing the sheets amounts to worse parenting. I've seen studies that show that working parents today spend more time engaged directly with their children than stay-at-home parents did in the sixties.

I haven't seen those studies. I have seen studies that show the number 1 thing for your child's academic success is reading, speaking to them in dialogue, and otherwise engaging them intellectually early on. Parents who did this less because they weren't home or parked their child in front of a TV inevitably had worse outcomes for their children.

No, but I'm arguing it's not particularly about IQ. One example I gave is that homelessness services for women are much better than for men. So the women who would be homeless have a better buffer against that, and a better pathway out of it, reducing the number of homeless women. Nothing to do with IQ; everything to do with structures and services.

I've never seen any society where homeless women outnumbered men.

You can claim that they don't matter. But they're the barriers I've faced, as a woman. They matter deeply to me, and are the reason, above all, that I'm not prepared to let the matter go. Whatever dismissive statements or claims you make, they're not going to change where I stand on this.

It's not my claim...it's logic.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

It's science.

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless

Personal anecdotes are often the primary ammunition of those who deny science. If you ask anyone in the alternative medicine or anti-vaccine movements for their evidence, you will almost certainly …

thelogicofscience.com

The idea that personal anecdotes are the worst kind of evidence and don't extrapolate to a larger population isn't something I came up with for this conversation.

It's old news.

As I understand it, it's the situation where someone is on, or approaching, maternity leave, and is targetted for redundancy.

And how is that different #8 where they are denied their job upon returning?

Or possibly where they've been working part time and are told when they come back it has to be full time or nothing.

Uh huh.

You're supposed to be given alternative duties.

Sure...but what if you're a lumberjack or something that doesn't really have safe jobs for women.

I think it's more, say you've developed a condition where you won't be able to continue in the role. You might be removed from that role. But if the condition is pregnancy related, and therefore temporary, they're not supposed to lose the role on that basis, but have temporary accommodation.

Can you think of an example? Because when I think of pregnancy related illness....I think of minor things which won't necessarily end your day (morning sickness) and serious things which you should be hospitalized for (extreme hypertension).

It might be more important to get the email about upcoming positions vacant.

Why wouldn't it be on the employee to stay informed about those?

Mostly unsuccessfully, so it's no real protection.

Perhaps they lacked evidence.

Yes. Employers do discriminate on this basis even though they're not supposed to. Hence: a barrier faced by women.

If they're discriminated against on this basis....they can seek legal recourse. As a practical matter though....you're asking that when employers consider whom to hire for a very important senior leadership role....they pretend that some of those applicants aren't capable of just disappearing from the job for a year and there's nothing they can do about it. If your business is dependent upon you choosing correctly, that's a rather large ask.

First off, usually paid at far lower than what you actually normally earn. Secondly, as I said, it's a barrier not because of the leave itself, but because of the structural and systemic problems around that.

The problems exist because of all the accommodations tied directly to the leave.

No. You don't have to fire him. He was only ever on a maternity leave contract, which is not renewed if she comes back. That's normal here, and well understood.

So he still gets the barrier....because despite proving his merit, he loses the job. That, or the employer gets the barrier....as he has to find someone likely less qualified that's willing to work for a year and then be out of a job.

Either way....the barrier isn't for the woman on maternity leave.

And if she wants to job share and there's no one to share it with, well, that's unfortunate.

Because she has to be accommodated.

But if she wants to job share and there's someone capable to share it with (perhaps he'd rather half the role than none of it?) then great; everyone wins.

Him taking half the job over unemployment isn't a "win for everyone" if he wants full time employment. That's a barrier for him because of maternity leave benefits he doesn't get.

Including you, who gets the benefit of the strengths of two different people in play.

I don't see switching off between different leaders as a model that's better than simply choosing 1 leader.

He took a maternity leave contract knowing the deal.

Which leads me to believe the quality of applicants for those contracts goes wayyyyyy down. A rather large barrier for the employer.

It's not really reasonable for him to complain when that contract reaches its end date; he's had a year or nearly a year's work on agreed terms, and he's had the benefit of the experience and presumably a great reference from you.

He's done all the difficult work of getting the hotel running correctly after opening....he's perfectly reasonable for complaining about a system that denies him privileges based on sex and awards them to women even if he displays more merit.

I thought you were about a more fair system that assessed merit more accurately.

You are doing an excellent job of illustrating the problem and the attitudes which create the barriers women face.

Lol you haven't listed a barrier. You listed a privilege that sometimes women aren't able to take advantage of 100%.

An even system would be one where you don't get maternity leave because men don't either.

If I'm in a class action lawsuit for hazard pay or because I got cheated out of overtime that I worked (and these things happen to men all the time) that's not a workplace barrier....that's my employer trying to cheat me and my coworkers out of benefits we're legally entitled to....but they are indeed benefits. Everyone, man or woman, is entitled to them....and whether I get back 0% of that overtime or 90% of it....it's not suddenly a workplace barrier.

Do men get 52 weeks of paternity leave in Australia? Does it come with a similarly long list of advantages and guarantees that the women get?

Or is this a set of special privileges just for women?

 

[Paidiske]

Your missing the point. The reason why straight women don't want to date transmen is because they don't count them in the first place as potential dates thus rejecting their identity as being real. In other words they are treating transmen as different to biological men based on their gender/sex identity. Under the law that would be regarded as descrimination. The same for blokes who don't want to date transwomen.

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that people who have an issue with others' choices of partner are displaying a sense of misplaced entitlement. There's no law against discrimination in who you date.

This is one of the issues Transpeople complain about. That they are not taken seriously or treated as the real sex when it comes to romantic relationships. They say that a biological male or female should treat them like they are the real opposite sex and be willing to date, sleep with them and marry them I guess if it came to that.

Some people complain about that, true. Whether it's a valid or reasonable complaint is a whole other issue.

Well yeah some sports don't require sex as the determining factor. But that still doesn't solve the problem as there are lots of sports where if you did not segregate sexes women would end up being dominated by males which would not be good for women. That would then be erasing women from most sports.

My point is, sporting bodies can work through, each given the particular parameters of their sport, what might be fair and reasonable, or not. Without the need for people to act as if the world is ending because the question of appropriate participation transwomen is entertained.

So going along with the language (pronouns, pregnant people, menstrators ect) is supporting and going along with the ideology behind it.

I disagree. You can use someone's preferred pronouns without meaning anything with it other than that you wish to build and maintain a good relationship with them.

Its also a greater matter of free speech.

Do you object this hard to every other workplace policy that might set limits to appropriate speech?

But yeah technically we could make adjustments. maybe have open access individual cubicles with a shower in each. I still think it makes for a very cold and exclusive environment where everyone is forced to change the entire to accomodate. Not that we don't want to accommodate differences.

Well there you go. We could. The world would not end.

I think we lose something when we take this option as change rooms and the like are an imtimate place and safe space where women for example can gather, help each other, chat, relax even.

Well, that's a description of no change room I've ever been in. I think you might be letting your imagination run away with you a bit there.

In my experience, change rooms are cold, unpleasant, unfriendly places where everyone does their best to get in and out as quickly as possible, and pretend not to notice anyone else's state of undress.

Why not just make seperate change rooms for transpeople altogether. They have their private space as they may have particular private matters they need help with and are able to share with others privately.

What? I mean, really? The mind boggles.

But I agree that we should talk about these issues to find solutions.

Great. So let's not speak as if solutions are impossible.

But once again the problem is not in the codes or policies themselves because they are based on law and Rights but on the application of those coedes and policies where they are applied unevenly.

I don't see that - for example - a policy that says you shall not harrass someone by repeatedly addressing them in a way they find distressing, is "uneven."

of course thats obvious, if you directly undermine your employer on social media by denegrating their brand, company or management. But that is not how PC and Woke work. It brings into the line of fire peoples beliefs and political views and the language expressed. People have not done anything wrong apart from expressing a different belief ande idea from the Woke companies and ideologues.

Well, if (for example) your employer is working hard to brand themselves as a safe place for LGBTIQA+ folks, then their employees expressing hostile views is going to directly undermine and denigrate their brand.

As I said, personally I dislike employers being able to control what you do when you're not working (including on your social media etc) but this is the reality we're in. I don't see it so much as a religious freedom issue as an employer-overreach issue, though.

Well yes but thats not just a religion is it.

In this situation, religion is a significant aspect of it, though.

So these positions cut against each other and theres no way to reconcile unless people are willing to give up their belief.

No, sorry, I don't buy this. We don't have to give up our own belief in order to engage respectfuly across difference.

For example, Roman Catholics don't believe Anglican clergy are really clergy. But they can, usually, meet with us, discuss areas of mutual concern, work together to serve the community, and even use our titles and acknowledge our role within our own churches, without having to give up their belief that our orders are not valid.

Why can't we extend the same level of courtesy to, say, trans people? It costs us nothing and demonstrates the love, peace, kindness, and so on, that mark the fruit of the Spirit. It's just not that hard.

I haven't seen those studies. I have seen studies that show the number 1 thing for your child's academic success is reading, speaking to them in dialogue, and otherwise engaging them intellectually early on. Parents who did this less because they weren't home or parked their child in front of a TV inevitably had worse outcomes for their children.

And yet we see results like this: Today’s parents spend more time with their kids than moms and dads did 50 years ago.

It's not just about whether or not you work.

I've never seen any society where homeless women outnumbered men.

This is worth reading: https://hoffmanpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Homeless-women-PR.pdf

And how is that different #8 where they are denied their job upon returning?

It looks as if #8 is more about shifting them to a different (lesser) role, rather than making them redundant.

Sure...but what if you're a lumberjack or something that doesn't really have safe jobs for women.

Even lumberjacking companies must have administrative work that needs doing.

Can you think of an example? Because when I think of pregnancy related illness....I think of minor things which won't necessarily end your day (morning sickness) and serious things which you should be hospitalized for (extreme hypertension).

But I think the point is, if you're hospitalised, you shouldn't lose your job on that account.

Why wouldn't it be on the employee to stay informed about those?

I think the point is, directly cutting your employee out of the loop can be a disadvantage.

Perhaps they lacked evidence.

It can be very hard to prove, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As a practical matter though....you're asking that when employers consider whom to hire for a very important senior leadership role....they pretend that some of those applicants aren't capable of just disappearing from the job for a year and there's nothing they can do about it. If your business is dependent upon you choosing correctly, that's a rather large ask.

No, it's not a matter of pretending. It's a matter of recognising that women shouldn't be disadvantaged because they *might* fall pregnant. Accommodating the legitimate needs of your employees is part of the package of having a business that employs people.

The problems exist because of all the accommodations tied directly to the leave.

And the attitude employers take to that.

So he still gets the barrier....because despite proving his merit, he loses the job.

That's not a barrier. He had a year's work he wouldn't have had, otherwise. He was never going to have more than a year's work. So it's not that he loses the job, it's that the job comes to its natural end.

Either way....the barrier isn't for the woman on maternity leave.

It's in the way she's treated.

Because she has to be accommodated.

If there's no one to share with, then maybe she can't be accommodated. I meant it was unfortunate for her. But the employer should be willing to try.

Him taking half the job over unemployment isn't a "win for everyone" if he wants full time employment.

It's a darn site better than no job, which is what he'd have otherwise.

That's a barrier for him because of maternity leave benefits he doesn't get.

It's not a barrier! He's had a year's work he wouldn't have had, if she didn't get maternity leave.

And, for what it's worth, dads can take parental leave instead of mums if they're the primary carers, so past the initial post-partum period, if he wants to and his partner is willing, he can be the one off on parental leave.

I don't see switching off between different leaders as a model that's better than simply choosing 1 leader.

Shared leadership is often stronger for drawing on the strengths, insights and gifts of more than one person.

He's done all the difficult work of getting the hotel running correctly after opening....he's perfectly reasonable for complaining about a system that denies him privileges based on sex and awards them to women even if he displays more merit.

As noted, he too can take parental leave if he wishes. So it's not based on sex.

And a short term contract is a short term contract. I don't think it's reasonable to take a short term contract and then complain that it's not permanent.

I thought you were about a more fair system that assessed merit more accurately.

Treating pregnancy as detracting from merit sure doesn't strike me as fair.

Lol you haven't listed a barrier.

You did, though, as you explained all the reasons why employers wouldn't want women.

Do men get 52 weeks of paternity leave in Australia? Does it come with a similarly long list of advantages and guarantees that the women get?

As noted, either parent can claim parental leave if they're the primary carer for the child. Often if the dad is claiming it, the mother will stay home for a few weeks and recover physically a bit, then she'll go back to work and he'll claim the balance of the leave. This works out better financially where she earns more, and from what I can see, currently about 1 in 20 people who claim parental leave are dads.

However, employers don't tend to look at men who might become fathers and discriminate against them on that basis.

 

[stevevw]

No, that really isn't the only way to resolve this.

Ok so how do we resolve that each sides Rights when they conflict. If say in a science class where a trans women is present and a Christian student expresses the belief that a biological male cannot become a women and therefore is not a real women. Should the Christian be able to express their belief.

Well, congratulations. Belief is allowed in the public square. It's even vocal.

Let me ask you. Do you think Christian beliefs/views on sex, marriage, trans, abortion conflict with the secular atheistic and materialist view ?

Look, there are places in the world where Christians are really being persecuted. Being martyred. Being thrown in prison for proclaiming that Jesus is Lord.

Australia just is not one of them.

So do you think persecution can be other than being martyred and thrown in prison. What about intimidation, oppression, denial of basic Rights through explicit actions against one group within a society. Were the early Christians who had to hide away and denied the public expression of their belief persecuted. Was that part of their persecution even though many may not have been imprisoned or murdered.

What we're dealing with is not persecution. It is, to some extent, loss of historic privilege.

When you say to some extent, what extent is that. If only to some extent what is the other extent for why Christians say they are persecuted. Is it in their imaginations. Didn't Christ say there will be persecution as the world turns away from God.

The days when - for example - the Catholic and Anglican archbishops of Sydney could go and meet with the Prime Minister and exit his office with a handshake agreement on whatever their issue of the day was, are gone.

Thats a pity. I think we need some religious/spiritual guidence as a society. We have scientists and health priofessionals for the physical health, mental health professionals for our psychological health. But we have no professionals for our spiritual health.

But not being automatically deferred to and agreed with is not persecution.

Its more than not being deffered to. As Christainity is seen as a threat to secular beliefs its being actively pushed out of the public square. It makes sense because if secular society is taking on a new worldview belief which is different to Christianity which we can all agree with then logically these beliefs are going to clash like all beliefs clash. Especially when they are dynamically opposed.

Being asked to cope with being only one strand of a pluralistic secular society, not all of which agrees with us on everything or even anything much, is not persecution. Being expected to be able to to function politely and appropriately in secular environments like workplaces, is not persecution.

I don't think too many Christians think they are owed anything nowadays. Those days have long gone. We have seen a number of fundemental changes away from the Church in the 20th century and especially since the 60s. I think Christians have been fairly accommodating considering that every Christian norm we once had has been erased.

And I find the positioning of it as such highly irritating, both because it trivialises real persecution, and it reinforces the narrative that Christians are really interested in controlling the society around us.

Its called playing the victim which Woke ideologues seem to be the best at today. Society has been reduced to identity politics where now everyone is divided into groups which are complaining about each other.

I believe that some Christains hold beliefs about marriage, sex, relationships, gender identity, race, and so on, which are in conflict with other beliefs held by some people in the wider community. I don't see it as a neat polarisation into two sets of views, though, as there are many different Christian views and many different non-Christian views.

What do you mean there are many different Christian views. Do you mean beliefs. I would have thought that belief is belief and there is only one belief for Christians Gods Word. Like say with sex before marriage, monogomous marriage, adultery, abortion, Objective morality, made in Gods image male and female and as a result are individuals with worth and dignity rather than identity politics.

Whether they conflict or not, of course they can exist at the same time in the public square, if we can be adult enough to negotiate living in a pluralistic society.

They can exist together in the public square so long as they don't cross each others path. But when they deo watch out. A good representation of this is through forums and social media and at the moment there is constant disagreement and polarization of beliefs. Now even language is seen as a threat and violence.

I used the example of pronouns and the conflict over what is a women and how each side have fundementally different beliefs on this. Asking either to change would be like asking a Christian or Wokist to give up their beliefs. Its not going to happen. So in that case people have to surpress their beliefs to tolerate each others position.

Maybe, but even so, I come back around to, nobody is owed a date. You might not like that many people don't find you attractive (generic "you"), but no rights are being violated in that experience.

You keep sidestepping the real issue and ironically ignoring the identity of transpeople by not acknowledging their different identity in all this. Nobody is owed a date but according to ideologues everyone especially minorities are owed their identity as being real and the Right to express this. Rights are being violated if an entire gender identity is not regarded as real.

Well, violence for sure needs to be addressed. I'm not sure that's particularly a trans issue, though.

Its a trans and womens issue. Theres a conflict between transwomen and lesbians as mentioned where both are becoming extreme and violent especially transwomen towards lesbians and women in general. Research shows that transwomen display male type criminal behaviour inclusing sexual harrassment and violence.

No, I don't think so. Some posts have been very clear.

Ok fair enough. Well if thats the case then thats not good.

These are all very vague or conditional statements. And when I have asked you what concrete action you were willing to support to address these issues, I have not seen you put forward a single one.

Gee your a hard task master lol. They are at least acknowledging there is a problem which is the first and most important part of addressing a problem. That naturally leads to an obligation to take action. I would refer to these posts suggesting how we can understand and address these issues through a balanced approach considering all factors (experience, facts, environment, nature ect). Otherwise we risk doing more harm

#1,624 Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative
#1,613 Once this is identified it will be self evident the systemic issues that deny these Rights and therefore need addressing.
#1,460 Second if that is the case then that is wrong as we need to listen to peoples experiences.

I also addressed you own experience by suggesting we need to listen to peoples experiences as part of addessing things.

But I also pointed out several times about how we as a society have got the basis wrong for addressing differences in the first place (identity politics) which makes it hard to implement positive changes within this framework. If as a society we can't even agree on the fundemental beliefs about human nature, nature itself and reality how can we even have a coherent discussion to create a better society.

I suggested an alternative to identity politics which I think is the most concrete action as it sets the foundation for how we see the issues and address them. I mentioned we already know this foundational Truth as we have used it throughout history such as in the US national Declaration and in DR Kings Civil Rights movement that sees humans as unique individuals made in the Gods image having inalienable natural Rights regardless of identity.

This is the first step, we need to be united as a people and it takes the identity out of the equation. So how about we deal with this first rather than putting the cart before the horse.

So I'll ask again, especially after so much detail has been provided about people's experiences, what concrete action are you willing to support, to address the ongoing barriers faced by women or other disempowered or marginalised groups?

Well here are some concrete actions employed by ideologues Trans ideology and Affirmative Action. The first concrete action would be to get rid of this ideological thinking out of the equation. That will go a long way to restoring justice and equality for all. Second I would try to eradicate as mush as possible identity politics.

As Dr King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character".

It could be added "will not be judged by gender identity, sex, ethnicity or any other category but by their character". In other words human worth is not in a persons identity but in just being human, united and part of the one family Gods children.

 

[Robban]

OK, silly question,

Can a male be a nun or a female be a monk?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And yet we see results like this: Today’s parents spend more time with their kids than moms and dads did 50 years ago.

It's not just about whether or not you work.

Even if I were to take this international self reported survey seriously....you just posted evidence that the more time you spend with your children, the better their outcomes. You're making my argument for me.

This is worth reading: https://hoffmanpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Homeless-women-PR.Mr.

The study....which spends a lot of time on results, not methodology.....was done in Turkey. I couldn't find results for all of Turkey, but I did find their capital.

Redirect Notice

90 percent of homeless people in Istanbul are men while 10 percent are women.

i think perhaps your data included war refugees or something. IIt's not even correct about Turkey by all indicators.

It looks as if #8 is more about shifting them to a different (lesser) role, rather than making them redundant.

See lumberjack example below.

Even lumberjacking companies must have administrative work that needs doing.

Which is probably already being done by someone. I suppose we can pay them to do redundant work though.

But I think the point is, if you're hospitalised, you shouldn't lose your job on that account.

Right... for cancer or something. If someone chooses to get a bunch of plastic surgery and misses a year of work though, why do they deserve to keep their job?

I think the point is, directly cutting your employee out of the loop can be a disadvantage.

The employee chose to take leave.

It can be very hard to prove, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Same with most crimes.

No, it's not a matter of pretending. It's a matter of recognising that women shouldn't be disadvantaged because they *might* fall pregnant.

You make it sound like an accident and not a choice.

Accommodating the legitimate needs of your employees is part of the package of having a business that employs people.

I don't think women need 52 weeks of leave.

And the attitude employers take to that.

That's not a barrier. He had a year's work he wouldn't have had, otherwise. He was never going to have more than a year's work. So it's not that he loses the job, it's that the job comes to its natural end.

Of course it's a barrier. He loses his job. You're calling it a barrier if the woman loses her job or isn't accomodated in a myriad of ways. She made a choice to go on 52 weeks of leave.

It's in the way she's treated.

She's being treated as if her choices shouldn't have any negative consequences for her....just everyone around her....because she's a woman.

There's no similar situation where men are told they don't have to face any negative consequences of their actions....and certainly no situation where they're protected against them legally.

If there's no one to share with, then maybe she can't be accommodated. I meant it was unfortunate for her. But the employer should be willing to try.

Oh her employer only has to try? I thought he could legally be held liable if he doesn't?

It's not a barrier! He's had a year's work he wouldn't have had, if she didn't get maternity leave.

If the employer kept him instead of her once her maternity leave ended....would you call that a barrier for her?

And, for what it's worth, dads can take parental leave instead of mums if they're the primary carers, so past the initial post-partum period, if he wants to and his partner is willing, he can be the one off on parental leave.

If his partner is willing....in other words, the woman chooses who takes the maternity leave lol.

Shared leadership is often stronger for drawing on the strengths, insights and gifts of more than one person.

I can't think of any examples. I can think of multiple examples where it was the downfall of some group. This guy Hannibal of Carthage once faced a Roman army led by 2 generals who traded off leadership every other day. Short version of the story is it didn't go well for them.

As noted, he too can take parental leave if he wishes. So it's not based on sex.

If his wife let's him.

Treating pregnancy as detracting from merit sure doesn't strike me as fair.

Well if we compare the two or three months she worked to the year her replacement spent getting everything running smoothly....we don't need to count her leave against her. We can simply judge merit against merit. If she looked like the better gm during those first 2-3 months....I'd have no problem with her getting the job.

You did, though, as you explained all the reasons why employers wouldn't want women.

Because of the gigantic amount of privilege and benefits they receive that aren't related to merit.

Like I said....fair would be no maternity leave at all.

In that situation, all the fake "barriers" you've listed would disappear wouldn't they?

That's because they're all related to this special benefit women get and men don't (unless their wives hand it to them of course).

This works out better financially where she earns more, and from what I can see, currently about 1 in 20 people who claim parental leave are dads.

1 in 20 wives let their husbands use their special benefits. Got it.

However, employers don't tend to look at men who might become fathers and discriminate against them on that basis.

Why would they? You just said it's an extremely low chance of happening.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok so how do we resolve that each sides Rights when they conflict. If say in a science class where a trans women is present and a Christian student expresses the belief that a biological male cannot become a women and therefore is not a real women. Should the Christian be able to express their belief.

I think it's largely about how the belief is expressed. If you can't express your belief respectfully, perhaps it's wiser not to speak.

Do you think Christian beliefs/views on sex, marriage, trans, abortion conflict with the secular atheistic and materialist view ?

I think that this is overly simplistic and binary thinking. There are a whole range of Christian views on each of those issues, and a whole range of non-Christian views.

So do you think persecution can be other than being martyred and thrown in prison. What about intimidation, oppression, denial of basic Rights through explicit actions against one group within a society.

Yes, but I think some Christians often confuse loss of privilege with persecution.

If only to some extent what is the other extent for why Christians say they are persecuted.

Siege mentality, us-vs.-them thinking, paranoia about "the world," etc. go a long way to explaining the rest.

Didn't Christ say there will be persecution as the world turns away from God.

The problem is when Christians see reasonable and justifiable objection to harmful behaviour from Christians, as persecution.

What do you mean there are many different Christian views. Do you mean beliefs. I would have thought that belief is belief and there is only one belief for Christians Gods Word. Like say with sex before marriage, monogomous marriage, adultery, abortion, Objective morality, made in Gods image male and female and as a result are individuals with worth and dignity rather than identity politics.

Has this thread alone not been enough to convince you that not all Christians think alike on these things?

Heck, I see threads on this forum arguing that women aren't made in God's image. So no, there is not only one Christian view on all sorts of things.

So in that case people have to surpress their beliefs to tolerate each others position.

It's as if we've forgotten what it means to be hospitable.

You keep sidestepping the real issue and ironically ignoring the identity of transpeople by not acknowledging their different identity in all this.

No. I'm disagreeing with you about whether it is a real issue at all.

Its a trans and womens issue. Theres a conflict between transwomen and lesbians as mentioned where both are becoming extreme and violent especially transwomen towards lesbians and women in general. Research shows that transwomen display male type criminal behaviour inclusing sexual harrassment and violence.

Violence from transwomen towards natal women is miniscule, compared to violence from men towards women. You appear to have a significant blind spot there about where the issue is with violence.

Gee your a hard task master lol.

I'm a realist. It's easy to spout vague platitudes, but if that doesn't translate into any actual willingness to address anything, it's fairly meaningless. And when pushed to acknowledge real and pressing problems, amazingly, those problems are typically denied, justified, explained away, dismissed, and so on.

#1,624 Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative
#1,613 Once this is identified it will be self evident the systemic issues that deny these Rights and therefore need addressing.
#1,460 Second if that is the case then that is wrong as we need to listen to peoples experiences.

No concrete practical action is identified in any of these statements.

I also addressed you own experience by suggesting we need to listen to peoples experiences as part of addessing things.

And yet when I share my experiences, has that moved you to agree to any single concrete practical action which might address the problems?

This is the first step, we need to be united as a people and it takes the identity out of the equation. So how about we deal with this first rather than putting the cart before the horse.

Again, I reject this, as it would obscure the reality of the marginalisation and oppression of people on the basis of group characteristics (such as sex, race, and so on).

That will go a long way to restoring justice and equality for all.

No, it really won't. It won't address a single one of the real issues people face right now.

Even if I were to take this international self reported survey seriously....you just posted evidence that the more time you spend with your children, the better their outcomes. You're making my argument for me.

I've never disputed that time spent with children nurturing them improves their outcomes. I have disputed tying this to not working outside the home. In those studies, working mothers today spent more time directly engaged with their children than stay-at-home mothers of decades ago.

The study....which spends a lot of time on results, not methodology.....was done in Turkey. I couldn't find results for all of Turkey, but I did find their capital.

Redirect Notice

90 percent of homeless people in Istanbul are men while 10 percent are women.

i think perhaps your data included war refugees or something. IIt's not even correct about Turkey by all indicators.

Why wouldn't we include war refugees, if we're talking about global figures?

That said, my argument is simply that the higher proportion of men who are homeless is able to be explained by factors other than IQ disparity. I don't think anything you've shared demonstrates otherwise.

Right... for cancer or something. If someone chooses to get a bunch of plastic surgery and misses a year of work though, why do they deserve to keep their job?

We're not talking about plastic surgery. We're talking about pregnancy-related illness.

The employee chose to take leave.

That doesn't mean the company needs to manage that in a way which disadvantages them, though.

You make it sound like an accident and not a choice.

Sometimes it is.

More to the point, at a population level, women having babies is not a "choice." It's how the species survives. It's hardly reasonable to penalise women for doing what the species needs us to do, in order to survive.

I don't think women need 52 weeks of leave.

I agree that it's an arbitrary figure. But we can probably agree that some period of leave around having a baby is necessary. So it shouldn't be penalised.

Of course it's a barrier. He loses his job. You're calling it a barrier if the woman loses her job or isn't accomodated in a myriad of ways.

There's a difference between losing a job, and coming to the end of a contract. The alternative for him was never having that position in the first place.

And yes, it's a gender-based barrier if women aren't hired, lose their jobs, or aren't accommodated around reproductive needs.

She's being treated as if her choices shouldn't have any negative consequences for her....just everyone around her....because she's a woman.

Reducing pregnancy to a simple question of individual "choice" is a problem in itself, I think; rather than seeing that the support of the next generation is the responsibility of a whole society.

But while being a parent is always going to come with a degree of opportunity cost (like everything else), I do agree that workplace discrimination shouldn't be part of that picture.

Oh her employer only has to try? I thought he could legally be held liable if he doesn't?

Refusing to even consider the possibility, without giving any "reasonable business grounds" would be a problem. You can see more here: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-a...ts/requests-for-flexible-working-arrangements

If the employer kept him instead of her once her maternity leave ended....would you call that a barrier for her?

Yes, because she had already been employed in that position. She's effectively been sacked for being pregnant.

If his partner is willing....in other words, the woman chooses who takes the maternity leave lol.

Don't most married couples actually talk about this sort of stuff?

I can't think of any examples.

Job sharing could be your company's competitive advantage – here’s how to get it right - HRM online

Flexible work has fast become the norm, but some employers still struggle to attract and retain top talent. Could job sharing be the answer?

www.hrmonline.com.au

Like I said....fair would be no maternity leave at all.

That's not fair. That would basically exclude whole swathes of women from the workplace. Falling pregnant isn't a "special benefit."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've never disputed that time spent with children nurturing them improves their outcomes. I have disputed tying this to not working outside the home. In those studies, working mothers today spent more time directly engaged with their children than stay-at-home mothers of decades ago.

Self reported studies aren't great but regardless...the study didn't compare working and non-working parents.

Why wouldn't we include war refugees, if we're talking about global figures?

1. Because women overwhelmingly don't stay and fight wars.

2. They aren't even necessarily homeless....they've fled their homes, return may be an option.

3. When discussing homelessness as a social problem, we aren't talking about homelessness caused by war....as that's not a problem we can solve by changing society.

That said, my argument is simply that the higher proportion of men who are homeless is able to be explained by factors other than IQ disparity.

Well since IQ is the biggest factor in work success, it also makes sense it's the biggest factor in homelessness.

We're not talking about plastic surgery. We're talking about pregnancy-related illness.

You said if you're "hospitalised". Does this mean you find it acceptable to fire people over certain hospitalizations?

That doesn't mean the company needs to manage that in a way which disadvantages them, though.

This is a very strange convo. The main disadvantage of not being is not knowing what is happening at work. You seem to think women deserve....for some reason....to never have to deal with any consequences, of any choice, ever. You want the people still at work to do extra work to keep the woman on maternity leave up to date on all opportunities.

Sometimes it is.

More to the point, at a population level, women having babies is not a "choice."

Well there's some feminists here in the US who would strenuously disagree with that...particularly once RvW was shot down.

It's how the species survives. It's hardly reasonable to penalise women for doing what the species needs us to do, in order to survive.

Nobody is being penalised. People aren't demanding you lose your job over something you said on Twitter. You are just having consequences. It may feel like a penalty but ask a man....we deal with them all the time.

There's a difference between losing a job, and coming to the end of a contract. The alternative for him was never having that position in the first place.

Is one of those two people still working or are they both unemployed?

And yes, it's a gender-based barrier if women aren't hired, lose their jobs, or aren't accommodated around reproductive needs.

I thought you were all about making society more "fair"?

Reducing pregnancy to a simple question of individual "choice" is a problem in itself, I think; rather than seeing that the support of the next generation is the responsibility of a whole society.

I chose not to have children....your kids are only my responsibility if I see you or someone else hurting them.

Refusing to even consider the possibility, without giving any "reasonable business grounds" would be a problem. You can see more here: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-a...ts/requests-for-flexible-working-arrangements

Some of what you're describing as barriers will inevitably be "reasonable business grounds" then, won't they?

Yes, because she had already been employed in that position. She's effectively been sacked for being pregnant.

So when he loses the job....not a barrier. When she loses the job...barrier. It's not a matter of merit, who worked more, who worked harder, who deserves it...because she's a woman.

Don't most married couples actually talk about this sort of stuff?

They definitely should....that doesn't seem to change the fact that it's the woman's choice. If he wants to take the maternity leave and so does she....who actually ends up getting the leave?

Job sharing could be your company's competitive advantage – here’s how to get it right - HRM online

Flexible work has fast become the norm, but some employers still struggle to attract and retain top talent. Could job sharing be the answer?

www.hrmonline.com.au

I'm sorry, I meant in a leadership position. I thought we were still discussing those. Sure...the people folding bedsheets at the hotel can share jobs.

That's not fair.

In what way?

That would basically exclude whole swathes of women from the workplace.

I'm not saying that she has to be fired. Let's say that if she's been an excellent general manager for 5 years before getting pregnant....the owner of the hotel may want her back no matter how good her replacement is. I'm simply arguing she shouldn't get the guarantee of freedom from consequences that men don't get or have.

Falling pregnant isn't a "special benefit."

Nobody falls pregnant. We aren't talking about the virgin Mary here. We're talking about a ridiculous 52 weeks of leave that are apparently consequence free for everyone except the employer, her coworkers, and her replacement.

 

[Paidiske]

Self reported studies aren't great but regardless...the study didn't compare working and non-working parents.

Given that far more mothers work today than did in the 60s, it did compare them indirectly.

1. Because women overwhelmingly don't stay and fight wars.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not they're homeless.

2. They aren't even necessarily homeless....they've fled their homes, return may be an option.

That doesn't mean they have safe secure housing right now.

3. When discussing homelessness as a social problem, we aren't talking about homelessness caused by war....as that's not a problem we can solve by changing society.

Well, a) when discussing homelessness, we need to take all causes into account, and b) of course we can change society to reduce warfare, and c) given that male homelessness is driven, in part, by war, it'd be a weird double standard to discount women's homelessness due to warfare but not men's.

Well since IQ is the biggest factor in work success, it also makes sense it's the biggest factor in homelessness.

Except that there are demonstrably other factors in play.

You said if you're "hospitalised". Does this mean you find it acceptable to fire people over certain hospitalizations?

You raised the question of hospitalisation. The original point was about providing flexibility around pregnancy-related health issues.

You seem to think women deserve....for some reason....to never have to deal with any consequences, of any choice, ever.

Not at all. If a woman chooses not to pursue education, that's on her. If she chooses not to perform to her potential at work, that's on her. If she chooses to behave as a social recluse, that's on her. And so on. But being discriminated against purely for being a woman (and I include the burden of pregnancy in that), that's not on her.

You want the people still at work to do extra work to keep the woman on maternity leave up to date on all opportunities.

How hard is it to not cut off someone's access to their email?

Well there's some feminists here in the US who would strenuously disagree with that...

There has always been a diversity of views amongst feminists.

Nobody is being penalised.... You are just having consequences.

Consequences that other people choose to impose unfairly. That's being penalised.

I thought you were all about making society more "fair"?

I don't see it as fair for women to be discriminated against for having children (or having the potential to have children).

Some of what you're describing as barriers will inevitably be "reasonable business grounds" then, won't they?

Yes, I think the law as it stands makes it too easy for businesses to continue to discriminate.

So when he loses the job....not a barrier. When she loses the job...barrier. It's not a matter of merit, who worked more, who worked harder, who deserves it...because she's a woman.

When the person who took a fixed-term contract has their contract end, that's not a barrier. When someone who took a permanent job is removed from it because of becoming a parent, that's a barrier. In neither case does it have anything to do with merit.

They definitely should....that doesn't seem to change the fact that it's the woman's choice. If he wants to take the maternity leave and so does she....who actually ends up getting the leave?

Whichever of them stays home and does the work of the primary carer. That's for them to work out between them.

I'm sorry, I meant in a leadership position. I thought we were still discussing those. Sure...the people folding bedsheets at the hotel can share jobs.

At this point I think we were discussing return from maternity leave to any job. That said, I've seen leadership positions job shared very successfully and fruitfully as well, as both could focus on the parts of the role where they had particular (non-overlapping) strengths.

In what way?

It's not fair that the biological reality of pregnancy exclude women from the workforce entirely during their childbearing years. Especially since some maternity leave means employers get to keep and benefit from completely capable and dedicated employees.

I'm not saying that she has to be fired.

But what does "no maternity leave" mean, then? Does it not mean that having a child entails leaving your job, without being able to return? Or are you imagining that a woman can go and labour in the company sickbay and be back to dealing with business by the time the ob/gyn has stitched her up?

(Yes, I'm being facetious, but I honestly don't know what you mean by "no maternity leave" not meaning being fired).

I'm simply arguing she shouldn't get the guarantee of freedom from consequences that men don't get or have.

She has absolutely no guarantee in this position that men don't get or have. If they go on parental leave, they also have the right to return to their position.

We're talking about a ridiculous 52 weeks of leave that are apparently consequence free for everyone except the employer, her coworkers, and her replacement.

Part of the reality of doing business is having to take reasonable care of your employees. Reasonable care includes allowing women to have babies and return to work. And it's really not that ridiculous; when it's a cultural norm, like it is here, it just becomes part of how things are, and everyone copes fine.