Generally, men are in this regard more reliable than women, for men don't typically take maternity leave, nor do they miss work because they need to attend to the children, such as missing time from work when the children are sick. This is why men are payed more for what seems like the same work: they are payed for their prospective availability. Of course, this is not specified on a person's employment contract or paycheck, it's a cultural assumption. — baker

And this is what the issue is: the unwritten cultural assumption. It’s actually a load of crap that men are paid more for their ‘prospective availability’ - that’s a flimsy excuse. If you write this clearly into the contract without discrimination, then you would see this.

This is what ‘parental leave’ and ‘family leave’ is all about - then either parent can take time off to care for babies and sick children. And they do. As Tiff said, the younger generation males are recognising these opportunities to genuinely share in the parenting responsibility, and both women and men are equally prepared to say “I’ll take this one” or “You stay home this time - I have a deadline to meet.”

If you are good at what you do and are loyal, you would be surprised how accommodating people can be. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Agreed. I set up with my office to work remotely from home a few weeks before our first child was born, and I continued to work in this fashion as required until our youngest started school. We never needed external child care.

Many people probably hate working in lowly positions in a capitalist system, where they are pushed to work at the edge of exhaustion for very little pay and always under the threat of losing their job. — baker

This is what I was arguing before - it’s not about wanting to work, but the relative value and conditions of employed work that isn’t wanted. People hate working more for less - their aim is always to work less for more. We naturally desire to improve efficiency and effectiveness in what we do, but this is rarely recognised by employers, who are usually more attentive to the squeaky wheel.

If you are good at what you do and are loyal, you would be surprised how accommodating people can be. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That depends on the type of work one does, the position one has.
A lowly worker in a factory or a subcontractor can hope for no such accomodations.

Up until now I didn't like the "cancel culture" to the point I would debate it's impact to the nth degree, much to the dismay of my offspring but I will be dipped if you didn't just score a BIG old point for them. Well done
/.../
Let me put it more clearly: my adult children are just as interested in "paternity" leave as they are maternity leave. In fact one of my boys fully intends on being a stay at home parent. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The reality of work is that one needs to be prepared for "old school" attitudes from one's employer.
This is capitalism, after all.

And this is what the issue is: the unwritten cultural assumption. It’s actually a load of crap that men are paid more for their ‘prospective availability’ - that’s a flimsy excuse. If you write this clearly into the contract without discrimination, then you would see this. — Possibility

What are you talking about?
For an employer, it makes sense to hire someone for whom there is reason to believe will consistently be available for work. Having to hire and train new people and substitutes is time-consuming and expensive, so employers avoid it as much as possible.

This is what ‘parental leave’ and ‘family leave’ is all about - then either parent can take time off to care for babies and sick children. And they do. As Tiff said, the younger generation males are recognising these opportunities to genuinely share in the parenting responsibility, and both women and men are equally prepared to say “I’ll take this one” or “You stay home this time - I have a deadline to meet.”

Sure, this is a possibility sometimes, but not something to count on.

Agreed. I set up with my office to work remotely from home a few weeks before our first child was born, and I continued to work in this fashion as required until our youngest started school. We never needed external child care. — Possibility

So, again, it's about socio-economic class. You could afford such an arrangment, Most people can't.

For an employer, it makes sense to hire someone for whom there is reason to believe will consistently be available for work. Having to hire and train new people and substitutes is time-consuming and expensive, so employers avoid it as much as possible. — baker

If that’s the case, then it makes sense to share the load. But this ‘cultural assumption’ - that women are consistently unavailable for work - certainly works in a man’s favour, doesn’t it?

Sure, this is a possibility sometimes, but not something to count on. — baker

No, but it’s something to work towards. That’s the point.

So, again, it's about socio-economic class. You could afford such an arrangment, Most people can't. — baker

Afford what? A home computer and email? Childcare would have cost half my pay check - it was never an efficient option. My employer simply valued my work, and made allowances for me to continue working.

If that’s the case, then it makes sense to share the load. But this ‘cultural assumption’ - that women are consistently unavailable for work - certainly works in a man’s favour, doesn’t it? — Possibility

That's the idea.

Afford what? A home computer and email? Childcare would have cost half my pay check - it was never an efficient option. My employer simply valued my work, and made allowances for me to continue working.

Most people don't work at a computer, and working from home isn't an option for them, because of the nature of their work.

So, again, it's about socio-economic class. You could afford such an arrangment, Most people can't.
— baker

Afford what? A home computer and email? — Possibility

Mainstream feminism conveniently forgets about the realities of socio-economic class, and tries to blame on gender issues things that actually have to do with socio-economic class.

Mainstream feminism conveniently forgets about the realities of socio-economic class, and tries to blame on gender issues things that actually have to do with socio-economic class. — baker

Did you want to keep painting with a worn out brush that no matter how big you spread the bullshit the streaks of reality keep shinning through? :sparkle:

Mainstream feminism conveniently forgets about the realities of socio-economic class, and tries to blame on gender issues things that actually have to do with socio-economic class. — baker

Socio-economic disparity compounds gender disparity - it doesn’t render it a non-issue. I’m aware that the choices available to me in terms of work flexibility are not available to everyone - that’s the point. It’s when they’re not available that women are discriminated against. That doesn’t make this a ‘natural’ condition of socio-economic class, though. It makes it a gender issue.

For an employer, it makes sense to hire someone for whom there is reason to believe will consistently be available for work. Having to hire and train new people and substitutes is time-consuming and expensive, so employers avoid it as much as possible. — baker

Sure, but an employer may also avoid paying people what their work is worth, or regularly, if they can get away with it. And they’ll avoid paying taxes or super as much as possible, too. All of this needs to go into the contract in order to ensure fairness. Acknowledging that all employees may have parenting commitments, regardless of gender, and stipulating the conditions for taking parental leave, needs to be included as part of that fairness - if we value the role of parenting, as a society.

I’m not saying it’d be an easy change, and I understand that some job structures don’t lend themselves immediately to the unpredictable nature of parental leave. But until such time as it is no longer assumed in any industry that only women take parental leave, then this disparity remains a gender issue, not a socio-economic one.

I see you've got your confidence back. On to the next chapter of bitchology!

I see you've got your confidence back. On to the next chapter of bitchology! — baker

Okay I'll bite.
What do you mean "you've got your confidence back."?
Where did I lose it? Did someone take it?
And what book am I supposed to be writing the NEXT chapter of?