Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to leave Ulster

by clivemcl Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:55 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43739023

There are few places I can post how I feel on such a touchy subject. Here will have to do.

Confession: I have said things in Whatsapp messages which would ruin my career if made public. Context is irrelevant when people quote in isolation. If you said it, you face the wrath.

Anyone else?

Who can say 100% that their whatsapp/text messages from the beginning of phone technology would not screw you over if publicised?

As a general rule I believe the best way to deal with wrong doing is to teach/educate/admonish.
Not just to say you will, but to have those at the centre testify publicly to that process of rehabilitation.
The first step of course is a real unscripted sincere apology that people can view and make judgement on. Scripted read outs do not work.

For me, I'd much rather my son looked up to Jackson and in 5/6 years time somehow hears Jackson talk about his shame and regret.
Something like that educates children much more than banishing these guys.

So what has happened instead?

Rather than accepting the kinder yet more challenging option of working with the guys and taking them on a journey, they are being exiled effectively.

What kind of love does that? Would you exile a family member, a good friend, or would you strive to see them change their life around?

There is zero love for these young guys who came through the academy and put their everything into the club. They are just assets to the club, and assets that have gone bad.

They might have had a slight tinge of commitment, and possibly were considering resisting the social media swell, but sadly money talks, and the sponsor money is by far the most important thing to this corporate business. And it doesn't matter that the sponsor operating the strings like a puppeteer has been found wanting moth ethically and professionally in the past itself.

What irks me most is that the swell against the club and IRFU to sack them is done so under the flimsy veneer of the boys being 'role models', when the absolute truth is that this is and always was a crusade to deal out punishment upon these two guys irrespective of the courts decision.

The #ibelieveher hastag existed before evidence was even heard and carrys on even after verdict. I have seen evidence twisted and misrepresented and folks quoting headlines completely wrong.

It's sickening. There was a mission to destroy these guys lives from the start and nothing would stop them.

Last but not least - I call upon the IRFU to explain exactly what their reasoning is for their departure. The two guys are on 100% equal standing as Gilroy in terms of demeaning, derogatory language in messages.
So if Gilroy is not also away, then the decision must be based on something else.
It can't be the case, because the verdict lawfully/legally settles that.
So what is it?

Will the IRFU try to avoid giving their position and their reasoning?

Lastly, please I don't want to be misrepresented. I think these young lads are idiots. I think their language is vile. On a personal morality level, I'm not a fan of their (what I would call) promiscuity or high levels of alcohol.
But I do believe wholeheartedly in second chances, in rehabilitation, in changed lives, in testimony.
And I believe in not imprisoning people without full proof evidence.

by Pete330v2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:03 pm

Sin é wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

I think the clue is in the name. Feminism advocates for equal rights for women. Not equal rights for men. Are you always this thick?

Equal to what though?
My understanding is that feminism advocates that women be treated the same as men - i.e., equal pay for equal work (which isn't the case now). Equal opportunities - woman want to have the samerepresentation in Parliament as men (bearing in mind that the population is 50/50 male/female).

To achieve this you might have to do some positive action towards fielding more female candidates.

The population may well be about 50/50 but the numbers actually wanting to engage in careers does not equate to that. There are still a large number (particularly here in Ireland) of what's seen as the traditional family setups where the housewife runs the home and the husband goes out to work.

by marty2086 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:10 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

I think the clue is in the name. Feminism advocates for equal rights for women. Not equal rights for men. Are you always this thick?

Equal to what though?
My understanding is that feminism advocates that women be treated the same as men - i.e., equal pay for equal work (which isn't the case now). Equal opportunities - woman want to have the samerepresentation in Parliament as men (bearing in mind that the population is 50/50 male/female).

To achieve this you might have to do some positive action towards fielding more female candidates.

The population may well be about 50/50 but the numbers actually wanting to engage in careers does not equate to that. There are still a large number (particularly here in Ireland) of what's seen as the traditional family setups where the housewife runs the home and the husband goes out to work.

It's about changing ideas and opinions too, the idea of the man staying at home and looking after the kids is often laughed at and mocked but it shouldn't be. The same where both work and the idea is that the woman still does the housework and maybe the male 'helps' where in fact its a shared responsibility. It's about challenge the traditional ideas and showing both genders on an equal footing, it's not an overnight change its a constant effort

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:33 pm

Its an outdated concept. Its fine as a movement when there actually is systemic discrimination against women. However, these days there is by an large equality of opportunity for both genders. Meanwhile, feminism continues to plough ahead completely over shooting the mark.

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:36 pm

marty2086 wrote:

It's about changing ideas and opinions too, the idea of the man staying at home and looking after the kids is often laughed at and mocked but it shouldn't be. The same where both work and the idea is that the woman still does the housework and maybe the male 'helps' where in fact its a shared responsibility. It's about challenge the traditional ideas and showing both genders on an equal footing, it's not an overnight change its a constant effort

Many women don't want their partners to stay at home because they enjoy the idea of someone providing for them.

Your second comment is the sort of patronising nonsense that feminists are famous for.

by marty2086 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:38 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:Its an outdated concept. Its fine as a movement when there actually is systemic discrimination against women. However, these days there is by an large equality of opportunity for both genders. Meanwhile, feminism continues to plough ahead completely over shooting the mark.

Except you're wrong, women are still discriminated against through pay and opportunity.

Women are still being sexually harassed, just this weekend a female train conductor here in NI was groped by a group of men on a train. Some people were saying that it was up to male colleagues to protect her which is BS, she shouldn't need protecting

by marty2086 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:40 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

It's about changing ideas and opinions too, the idea of the man staying at home and looking after the kids is often laughed at and mocked but it shouldn't be. The same where both work and the idea is that the woman still does the housework and maybe the male 'helps' where in fact its a shared responsibility. It's about challenge the traditional ideas and showing both genders on an equal footing, it's not an overnight change its a constant effort

Many women don't want their partners to stay at home because they enjoy the idea of someone providing for them.

Your second comment is the sort of patronising nonsense that feminists are famous for.

Not sure how it's patronising to point out what is being done, I do however think it's patronising to speak for women which is what you've done. You've figures to back this up I take it?

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:53 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:Its an outdated concept. Its fine as a movement when there actually is systemic discrimination against women. However, these days there is by an large equality of opportunity for both genders. Meanwhile, feminism continues to plough ahead completely over shooting the mark.

Except you're wrong, women are still discriminated against through pay and opportunity.

Women are still being sexually harassed, just this weekend a female train conductor here in NI was groped by a group of men on a train. Some people were saying that it was up to male colleagues to protect her which is BS, she shouldn't need protecting

Not they aren't. There is literally no evidence that women are discriminated against in terms of pay. OECD figures confirm that in Ireland when you account for hours worked women make slightly more money than men in terms of pay per hour worked. Women are also significantly more likely to take unpaid and part time work, which is also accounted for in overall salary averages. There is also no evidence that women are at a disadvantage in terms of opportunity unless you are specifically referring to the impact of maternity on their careers. Maternity is a choice though.

You could actually build a better case for men be at a disadvantage in Ireland because women in Ireland are getting better grades in primary and secondary level education which could be explained by the fact that there are more female teachers. Women are more likely to be in a favourable position to get better jobs out of university.

Men tend to be more likely to end up as CEOs because they are more likely to work the 80 hours per week for years and years to get to the top. Opportunity vs outcome. You have to really really want to be a CEO to become one. It takes a certain type of person to want that. Someone willing to sacrifice everything else in their lives.

There is no excuse for sexual harassment and I am all in favour of legislating against it.

by The Great Aukster Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:55 pm

Isn't feminism about equal opportunities as well as equal pay?

According to Wiki there are 131,000 senior males compared to 25,000 senior females registered as rugby players in England. To avoid being labelled misogynist, what are the RFU doing to provide the additional 106,000 places so that per capita women have the same opportunity to play as men?

by Pete330v2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:12 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvFi3A1GIJ8

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:53 pm

To call for 50/50 politician split is to assume that men politicians are incapable of representing the rights of women.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gives feminism a bad name. To claim that men as a gender are incapable of representing their fellow women is just as bad as any kind of assumption about the female gender.

What the hell is wrong with all things on merit? I'd prefer all my politicians/police officers/teachers whatever to simply be the best people for the role.

As for opportunities in business etc... it is an employers right to invest more in an employee who will put in unbroken years of work into the company.

Having children is a choice, not a right. Some choose not too. Some choose to wait. Some choose that the husband takes full paternity leave and the mother takes only a few weeks. (oh and by the way still very many establishments only put baby changing fascilities in the female toilets - maybe I should arrange a protest)

All choices.

Best person for the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GWHgVZJQU

by the-goon Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:01 pm

I don't understand how anyone still believes in the "gender wage gap" anymore, it's been debunked since the 80's. Google Thomas Sowell.

In a free society you won't get equal representation, so in order to do so, you need to socially engineer to achieve your goal, which is marxism, and certainly not free.

Demanding equality of outcome is tyranny, only equality of opportunity is freedom. And that is what we have now in the west.

1st and 2nd wave feminism fought for equality of opportunity and won, 3rd wave (current) feminism wants equality of outcome.

by the-goon Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:09 pm

clivemcl wrote:To call for 50/50 politician split is to assume that men politicians are incapable of representing the rights of women.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gives feminism a bad name. To claim that men as a gender are incapable of representing their fellow women is just as bad as any kind of assumption about the female gender.

What the hell is wrong with all things on merit? I'd prefer all my politicians/police officers/teachers whatever to simply be the best people for the role.

As for opportunities in business etc... it is an employers right to invest more in an employee who will put in unbroken years of work into the company.

Having children is a choice, not a right. Some choose not too. Some choose to wait. Some choose that the husband takes full paternity leave and the mother takes only a few weeks. (oh and by the way still very many establishments only put baby changing fascilities in the female toilets - maybe I should arrange a protest)

All choices.

Best person for the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GWHgVZJQU

In the UK at least, there is a women's only political party. But instead women choose to vote for male MPs to represent them... How odd.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:30 pm

clivemcl wrote:
As for opportunities in business etc... it is an employers right to invest more in an employee who will put in unbroken years of work into the company.

But yet you think it is not an employers right to terminate the contract of someone who negatively impacts the company with their actions and choices?

by Sin é Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:40 pm

the-goon wrote:I don't understand how anyone still believes in the "gender wage gap" anymore, it's been debunked since the 80's. Google Thomas Sowell.

In a free society you won't get equal representation, so in order to do so, you need to socially engineer to achieve your goal, which is marxism, and certainly not free.

Demanding equality of outcome is tyranny, only equality of opportunity is freedom. And that is what we have now in the west.

1st and 2nd wave feminism fought for equality of opportunity and won, 3rd wave (current) feminism wants equality of outcome.

Sowel is a conservative who doesn't believe in gun control in the US.

According to OECD figures, there is a differential. In UK its was 16.9% (2015). Ireland 15.7% (2014). An example: Female Chief Financial Officers of a company earn on average 16% less than their male counterparts.

You are behind on your feminism waves. The current one is 4th Wave.

Fourth-wave feminism is the resurgence of interest in feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the use of social media.[1] According to feminist scholar Prudence Chamberlain, the focus of the fourth wave is justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence against women. Its essence, she writes, is "incredulity that certain attitudes can still exist".

by Sin é Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:50 pm

clivemcl wrote:To call for 50/50 politician split is to assume that men politicians are incapable of representing the rights of women.

They are not calling for 50/50. Something like 30% I think.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gives feminism a bad name. To claim that men as a gender are incapable of representing their fellow women is just as bad as any kind of assumption about the female gender.

No one is claiming that.

What the hell is wrong with all things on merit? I'd prefer all my politicians/police officers/teachers whatever to simply be the best people for the role.

I'd agree. It can work the other way as well in female dominated professions. For example, there is a shortage of male teachers which is seen as not good as it would be good for young men to have male teachers as role models.

As for opportunities in business etc... it is an employers right to invest more in an employee who will put in unbroken years of work into the company.

Rugby players are not ordinary employees though. They work on contracts.

Having children is a choice, not a right. Some choose not too. Some choose to wait. Some choose that the husband takes full paternity leave and the mother takes only a few weeks. (oh and by the way still very many establishments only put baby changing fascilities in the female toilets - maybe I should arrange a protest)

Having children is very important. Just as important as sitting in an office all day. The next generation are required to pay taxes to support our pensions.

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:02 pm

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
As for opportunities in business etc... it is an employers right to invest more in an employee who will put in unbroken years of work into the company.

But yet you think it is not an employers right to terminate the contract of someone who negatively impacts the company with their actions and choices?

But that's simply assumption.

Assumption that lots of fans would turn their backs if the players were kept on, and assumption that customers would leave BOI if they kept sponsoring.

I'm not convinced on either.

but yea to answer your'e question, yes, they have the right too. I just think they are wrong. I think they could have swung it and made a deal out of doing the noble thing and working with/rehabilitating the players.

The gender pay gap and a lot of feminist don't just disagree with maternity leave having an effect on pay or career opportunities, they feel they deserve to be immune from that.

by marty2086 Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:07 pm

Well done Rob Herring and the Ulster players clap

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43795762

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:10 pm

clivemcl wrote:
but yea to answer your'e question, yes, they have the right too. I just think they are wrong. I think they could have swung it and made a deal out of doing the noble thing and working with/rehabilitating the players.

What exactly do they need rehabilitated from?

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:10 pm

Sin é wrote:
clivemcl wrote:To call for 50/50 politician split is to assume that men politicians are incapable of representing the rights of women.

They are not calling for 50/50. Something like 30% I think. Hey I'm just responding to how you worded it. "woman want to have the samerepresentation in Parliament as men (bearing in mind that the population is 50/50 male/female)"

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gives feminism a bad name. To claim that men as a gender are incapable of representing their fellow women is just as bad as any kind of assumption about the female gender.

No one is claiming that. So why is it so important to force more woman representatives?

Having children is a choice, not a right. Some choose not too. Some choose to wait. Some choose that the husband takes full paternity leave and the mother takes only a few weeks. (oh and by the way still very many establishments only put baby changing fascilities in the female toilets - maybe I should arrange a protest)

Having children is very important. Just as important as sitting in an office all day. The next generation are required to pay taxes to support our pensions.
Of course it's important, but like the other spouse can take the full paternity leave. If these women wants to climb the ladder they can take it up with their partner and make sure they don't go absent from their position. You can't claim to be full committed to you job is you are content for another person to be your substitute for many months every time you have kids.
Having children is super important, and i love my wife for doing it. And I'm absolutely busting my balls to bring the money in to allow for it.
But you can't claim the rewards for being committed if you weren't committed.

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:13 pm

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
but yea to answer your'e question, yes, they have the right too. I just think they are wrong. I think they could have swung it and made a deal out of doing the noble thing and working with/rehabilitating the players.

What exactly do they need rehabilitated from?

Their opinions of women, their disrespectful attitudes.

I would like to hope that they haven't just told Gilroy he's suspended, but that they've actually dressed him down and told him why he was wrong. And you'd like to think Gilroy verbally expressed his understanding of that.
These read out statements just seem so wooden and insincere.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 pm

clivemcl wrote:Of course it's important, but like the other spouse can take the full paternity leave. If these women wants to climb the ladder they can take it up with their partner and make sure they don't go absent from their position.

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you are referring to same sex couples, the spouse might just have some issues with the breast feeding.

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:19 pm

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Of course it's important, but like the other spouse can take the full paternity leave. If these women wants to climb the ladder they can take it up with their partner and make sure they don't go absent from their position.

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you are referring to same sex couples, the spouse might just have some issues with the breast feeding.

A lot of mothers breastfeed until over a year, do you think they all take maternity leave until the babies are weaned?

A lot of mother's do not breastfeed. My wife being one.

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:23 pm

Sin é wrote:
the-goon wrote:I don't understand how anyone still believes in the "gender wage gap" anymore, it's been debunked since the 80's. Google Thomas Sowell.

In a free society you won't get equal representation, so in order to do so, you need to socially engineer to achieve your goal, which is marxism, and certainly not free.

Demanding equality of outcome is tyranny, only equality of opportunity is freedom. And that is what we have now in the west.

1st and 2nd wave feminism fought for equality of opportunity and won, 3rd wave (current) feminism wants equality of outcome.

Sowel is a conservative who doesn't believe in gun control in the US.

According to OECD figures, there is a differential. In UK its was 16.9% (2015). Ireland 15.7% (2014). An example: Female Chief Financial Officers of a company earn on average 16% less than their male counterparts.

You are behind on your feminism waves. The current one is 4th Wave.

Fourth-wave feminism is the resurgence of interest in feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the use of social media.[1] According to feminist scholar Prudence Chamberlain, the focus of the fourth wave is justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence against women. Its essence, she writes, is "incredulity that certain attitudes can still exist".

Like I said your figures don't hold up to any form of basic scrutiny when you look at them on a pay per hour of work basis. Yet feminists want more pay for less work. You couldn't make it up.

Per OECD's figures men in Ireland spend 372 minutes per day in work to 232 minutes for women in paid work. That is 37% more time per day and yet men only earn about 15% more in Ireland. Seems fairly unfair to me.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:25 pm

clivemcl wrote:
rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Of course it's important, but like the other spouse can take the full paternity leave. If these women wants to climb the ladder they can take it up with their partner and make sure they don't go absent from their position.

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you are referring to same sex couples, the spouse might just have some issues with the breast feeding.

A lot of mothers breastfeed until over a year, do you think they all take maternity leave until the babies are weaned?

A lot of mother's do not breastfeed. My wife being one.

Not breastfeeding as an informed choice, and understanding the potential health implications with that choice is one thing, but being in a position that your career may suffer as a consequence of doing so is something else entirely.

The point is woman are biologically different and it is right that employers recognize and they aren't penalized.

I don't see that as a feminist concept and don't see what it has got to do with Jackson and Olding getting the chop.

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:32 pm

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Of course it's important, but like the other spouse can take the full paternity leave. If these women wants to climb the ladder they can take it up with their partner and make sure they don't go absent from their position.

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless you are referring to same sex couples, the spouse might just have some issues with the breast feeding.

A lot of mothers breastfeed until over a year, do you think they all take maternity leave until the babies are weaned?

A lot of mother's do not breastfeed. My wife being one.

Not breastfeeding as an informed choice, and understanding the potential health implications with that choice is one thing, but being in a position that your career may suffer as a consequence of doing so is something else entirely.

The point is woman are biologically different and it is right that employers recognize and they aren't penalized.

I don't see that as a feminist concept and don't see what it has got to do with Jackson and Olding getting the chop.

Well lets not get into the breastfeeding argument which is just one of many issues with the 'sisterhood' viciously turns on each other with a fierce amount of disdain and judgement.

You are right about it being a choice. It is.

So is having children, and taking maternity leave.

As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Hey, I didn't start this thread of discussion Rodders, but I'll keep responding as long as you keep responding! Smile

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:38 pm

Ah. Making sure there is equality for men. Yes you're right that paternity van be taken now a d you're legally protected the same as women.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:40 pm

clivemcl wrote:
As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Yes it should have zero impact on your career and your employer should be ok with it.

By the amount of posting you do they probably won't notice much difference anyway Wink

.

by JmD Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Back on topic, Rob Herring with a more mature response than the supposed CEO:

http://www.the42.ie/rob-herring-ulster-jackson-olding-3962545-Apr2018/?amp=1

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:02 pm

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Yes it should have zero impact on your career and your employer should be ok with it.

By the amount of posting you do they probably won't notice much difference anyway .

It was hypothetical anyway, I own my own business. No employees though, so they are safe from my tyranny! Wink

OK, let's be clear though, I'm not saying maternity leaves should result in no promotions or salary increase. Just that the time away should be counted against your time at the company. You shouldn't be on the same page as your equivalent who took no time off. Is that not obvious?

But I do disagree with it being a reason not to employ a female at all.

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:05 pm

This is second article I've read on Rob Herring. Is this all he said, is their a full transcript?

Nice that he said it was sad, but is that it? I guess they can't exactly be seen to disagree with the decision.

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:05 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. Making sure there is equality for men. Yes you're right that paternity van be taken now a d you're legally protected the same as women.

You seem opposed to the idea that there should be equality for men. Not surprising therefore that you position yourself as a feminist.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:07 pm

You seem confused guns.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:09 pm

clivemcl wrote:
rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Yes it should have zero impact on your career and your employer should be ok with it.

By the amount of posting you do they probably won't notice much difference anyway .

It was hypothetical anyway, I own my own business. No employees though, so they are safe from my tyranny!

So 100% of your workforce are male? I rest my case .... Run

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:13 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem confused guns.

You lack intelligence.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:15 pm

Been a while since I've done an iq test.

by carpet baboon Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:29 pm

clivemcl wrote:
rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Yes it should have zero impact on your career and your employer should be ok with it.

By the amount of posting you do they probably won't notice much difference anyway .

It was hypothetical anyway, I own my own business. No employees though, so they are safe from my tyranny!

OK, let's be clear though, I'm not saying maternity leaves should result in no promotions or salary increase. Just that the time away should be counted against your time at the company. You shouldn't be on the same page as your equivalent who took no time off. Is that not obvious?

But I do disagree with it being a reason not to employ a female at all.

But if the person that stayed while the female was on maternity is not as good as the female then surely it should be judged solely on merit not how long you have been there

by clivemcl Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:57 pm

carpet baboon wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
As a man, say if my household decides to flip it (which we are allowed to) what if I take 9 month paternity and my wife goes straight back to work.
Do you think my employer would be totally ok with it? Should I expect that to have zero impact on career progression as a man?

Yes it should have zero impact on your career and your employer should be ok with it.

By the amount of posting you do they probably won't notice much difference anyway .

It was hypothetical anyway, I own my own business. No employees though, so they are safe from my tyranny!

OK, let's be clear though, I'm not saying maternity leaves should result in no promotions or salary increase. Just that the time away should be counted against your time at the company. You shouldn't be on the same page as your equivalent who took no time off. Is that not obvious?

But I do disagree with it being a reason not to employ a female at all.

But if the person that stayed while the female was on maternity is not as good as the female then surely it should be judged solely on merit not how long you have been there

If all things were done on merit, there would be NO inside promotions, but roles would be publicly advertised and everyone including the current employees would battle it out Wink

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:08 pm

So the point here is you can discriminate against people taking maternity or paternity leave as you could discriminate against someone tho is disabled. Better not get caught doting it though.

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:10 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the point here is you can discriminate against people taking maternity or paternity leave as you could discriminate against someone tho is disabled. Better not get caught doting it though.

Well if you are allowed discriminate against someone based on a private whatsapp message anything seems possible.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:25 pm

I agree. People break laws and get away with it all the time.

by Collapse2005 Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:35 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree. People break laws and get away with it all the time.

There is no law against vulgar whatsapp messages you plank.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm

There is against unfair dismissal. But as you say people get away with breaking the law.

by UlsterinKildare Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:17 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:These people don't have that kind of room, bitterness and hatred takes up a lot of space it seems.

Well said, Pete.

by the-goon Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:22 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
the-goon wrote:I don't understand how anyone still believes in the "gender wage gap" anymore, it's been debunked since the 80's. Google Thomas Sowell.

In a free society you won't get equal representation, so in order to do so, you need to socially engineer to achieve your goal, which is marxism, and certainly not free.

Demanding equality of outcome is tyranny, only equality of opportunity is freedom. And that is what we have now in the west.

1st and 2nd wave feminism fought for equality of opportunity and won, 3rd wave (current) feminism wants equality of outcome.

Sowel is a conservative who doesn't believe in gun control in the US.

According to OECD figures, there is a differential. In UK its was 16.9% (2015). Ireland 15.7% (2014). An example: Female Chief Financial Officers of a company earn on average 16% less than their male counterparts.

You are behind on your feminism waves. The current one is 4th Wave.

Fourth-wave feminism is the resurgence of interest in feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the use of social media.[1] According to feminist scholar Prudence Chamberlain, the focus of the fourth wave is justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence against women. Its essence, she writes, is "incredulity that certain attitudes can still exist".

Like I said your figures don't hold up to any form of basic scrutiny when you look at them on a pay per hour of work basis. Yet feminists want more pay for less work. You couldn't make it up.

Per OECD's figures men in Ireland spend 372 minutes per day in work to 232 minutes for women in paid work. That is 37% more time per day and yet men only earn about 15% more in Ireland. Seems fairly unfair to me.

Haha, if you disagree with Sine on topic X, your views on unrelated topic Y must instantly be ignored. Amazing, you are an endless source of entertainment.

BTW, it's illegal to pay women less for the same work as men just because they are women, if you know this is happening call the police.

Isn't it strange that all these companies pay women less for the same work, and then hire mainly women to do their payroll, thus giving women access to their crime. Yet nothing happens.

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:46 pm

Sin e think the ratio is more 52 f to 48 m. But your points are valid as usual.

by The Great Aukster Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:15 pm

Sin é wrote:You are behind on your feminism waves. The current one is 4th Wave.

Fourth-wave feminism is the resurgence of interest in feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the use of social media.[1] According to feminist scholar Prudence Chamberlain, the focus of the fourth wave is justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence against women. Its essence, she writes, is "incredulity that certain attitudes can still exist".

Justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence! Pity the feminists attacking Jackson didn't apply those principles to their own behaviour. Dara Florence has been harassed and abused for what - telling the truth. She is being hounded out of Ireland, and will have to leave friends and family because her truth wasn't what the mob wanted to hear.

by Pot Hale Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:16 pm

So Ulster Rugby players are sad but they have to move on.

Enough said.

by The Great Aukster Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:30 pm

Enough sad.

by Collapse2005 Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:42 pm

Sin é wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

I think the clue is in the name. Feminism advocates for equal rights for women. Not equal rights for men. Are you always this thick?

Equal to what though?
My understanding is that feminism advocates that women be treated the same as men - i.e., equal pay for equal work (which isn't the case now). Equal opportunities - woman want to have the samerepresentation in Parliament as men (bearing in mind that the population is 50/50 male/female).

To achieve this you might have to do some positive action towards fielding more female candidates.

I find it staggering that there are people out there that actually believe that. Sin you used to strike me as someone with at least a little critical thought behind your posts.

As already demonstrated Women in Ireland get paid more per hour in Ireland than their male counterparts. Conditions for women are already better than for men re pay. If anything the balance should be addressed the other way.

Secondly, equality of opportunity does not equal the same female representation as male representation in parliament. That would be equality of outcome. You cant force women to want to get into politics. Personally I do believe that it would be favourable for more female politicians as diversity in general is a good thing however, to suggest that there is some sort of systemic discrimination preventing women from being politicians is garbage.

by Collapse2005 Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:46 pm

the-goon wrote:

Haha, if you disagree with Sine on topic X, your views on unrelated topic Y must instantly be ignored. Amazing, you are an endless source of entertainment.

BTW, it's illegal to pay women less for the same work as men just because they are women, if you know this is happening call the police.

Isn't it strange that all these companies pay women less for the same work, and then hire mainly women to do their payroll, thus giving women access to their crime. Yet nothing happens.

If companies could get away with paying women less then they would only hire women as the labour would be cheaper (women get better grades so it would make sense in terms of academic merit too). The fact is they cant though and they most certainly don't in the overall scheme of things. You have to have the naivety of a 13 year old girl to believe there is some sort conspiracy against women re pay.

by Sponsored content