Comments on: Why I was tempted to discriminate against women

By: File Cabinet Key Storage

File Cabinet Key Storage — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:54:00 +0000

That’s the great article! I just pass ‘n read it, two thumbs up!

By: UGG boots

UGG boots — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:55:00 +0000

I am also a XX fan who really like this! I also like XX, and purchase lots of it every time,
http://www.eeadie.com” >eeadie
like-minded friends can have a look ,we can communicate by the way~~

By: davidbaer

davidbaer — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:25:01 +0000

Many companies all over the world need your opinions on their products. They will send you a simple online survey forms, where you need to fill it out and they pay you money.

The most remarkable thing about this paid survey program is that anyone can make money with it.
It doesn't require any special skills, training, education or previous business experience. You only need access to the Internet and basic typing skills.
It is the perfect home business for stay at home moms, students, home makers, retirees or anyone that is in need of some extra cash.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

By: Nicholas Lovell

Nicholas Lovell — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:39:57 +0000

The only issue I take with youf comments, Yishay, is that in my experience (and I emphasise that this is anecdotal, not research-led), mothers are, in general, more reluctant to go back to work quickly than fathers.
So I agree that ending discrimination in law is the most important thing. But we still have a cultural/biological challenge of allowing either parent to choose to be the primary carer.

By: Yishay Mor

Yishay Mor — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:34:37 +0000

Its bad for mothers, and its bad for fathers (denying their right to be active parents)

By: Yishay Mor

Yishay Mor — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:33:00 +0000

A three year maternity leave law is sexist. It assumes that a good mum is a stay-at-home mum. It is also very backwards in terms of educational philosophy, assuming the best place for a child is at home.
Maternity rights in general are not the problem. Discriminations is rooted in the asymmetry in parental rights and duties. If the law would provide for a package of rights to be shared by both parents as they see fit, they there would be no grounds for discrimination. Of course, there is a degree of asymmetry dictated by biology, but that only holds for the fist 3-4 weeks after birth. From there on, a dad can provide as good a care as a mum.
As for the overall length, when they reach the age of 1, children already have sufficiently developed social skills to benefit from spending as much time possible in a peer group. Send them to a nice nursery and go to work.

By: Shared Items – December 2, 2009 « Bramanga.com

Shared Items – December 2, 2009 « Bramanga.com — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:41:11 +0000

[...] Why I was tempted to discriminate against women [...]

By: Arthur Ice

Arthur Ice — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:34:51 +0000

the problem here is inequality. as in the bills themselves are unequal. there is an entire group of people who are not included in this bill. in fact _half the population_. why is it that only the women get leave? make it equal across the board and this problem disappears. now it's not 'i can't hire this women because she might get pregnant' this might provide a slight incentive against hiring younger people, but this is easily overcome with experience or talent.

this is after all how sweden and norway does it. so far they seem to have it right on discrimination. (except for recently with muslims).

By: Nicholas Lovell

Nicholas Lovell — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:03:19 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Mick, but I don't think Sweden's success is as clear cut as you make out.

Prospect says "A 2009 paper by Swedish economist Magnus Henrekson confirms that womena are much more likely to reach top executive positions in Anglo-Saxon countries - and especially the US, which has only 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave - than in Scandianavia... Forcing fathers to tak paternity leave, meanwhile, has done little to change sex-roles in Scandinavia."

And

"The pay gap in Sweden fell from 33 per cent in 1968, before generous maternity protection was first introduced, to 18 per cent by 1981. But it as been rising gradually ever since then."

In other words, Sweden is actually evidence that generous maternity benefits have not delivered equality for women.

I agree that calling it "parental leave" will be a big step forward, but the Swedish example shows that after 40 years, generous maternity benefits have not brought equality.

By: Mick

Mick — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:34:04 +0000

As a Swedish man I find it fascinating that the article discusses "maternity" leave and not parental leave, as we call it in Sweden. This is a situation affecting anyone wanting to raise their kids, not just mothers. Also, as a previous commenter said, it's a problem for the companies, not the people who make up the workforce. Without the workforce, companies are nothing. The problem isn't the parental leave, it's the view of parental leave as being a problem that is causing issues.

Reading this article made me fell like I was back in the 80's, I seriously thought it was a weird joke, the thinking is so backward to me.

Cultural differences I suppose.