Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cakie

Farage - working mothers worth less than men

Recommended Posts

Is he just trying to wind people up and get on the front pages?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1197923/farage-working-mothers-worth-less-than-men

 

What about working fathers, are they worth less than men without families. This makes my blood boil.

 

What skills do you get from being a mother (or parent)?

 

Time management

Mulitasking

Negotiation skills (3 year old in the toy aisle at Tesco)

Dealing with stressful situations (ditto)

Working long hours for no pay

The list is endless.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he just trying to wind people up and get on the front pages?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1197923/farage-working-mothers-worth-less-than-men

 

What about working fathers, are they worth less than men without families. This makes my blood boil.

 

What skills do you get from being a mother (or parent)?

 

Time management

Mulitasking

Negotiation skills (3 year old in the toy aisle at Tesco)

Dealing with stressful situations (ditto)

Working long hours for no pay

The list is endless.......

Makes you wonder just what planet (or century) these goons come from...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anything is especially wrong with this statement. 

 

"A woman who has a client base, has a child and takes two or three years off - she is worth far less to her employer when she comes back than when she went away because that client base won't be stuck as rigidly to her portfolio"

Taking a break because you have young children is commendable but from an employer's point of view is somewhat inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anything is especially wrong with this statement. 

Taking a break because you have young children is commendable but from an employer's point of view is somewhat inconvenient.

 

I agree if someone takes a lot of time off work they will lose contacts, if your face and authority is not visible people tend to forget you over time, common sense really, so potential customers and employers will look to other people who they can rely on to get the job done.

 

If someone stays in the job for longer and gets more things done they will get more promotions and be more successful than a mother who takes a lot of time off. Nothing nasty about it - just how things work..... in the world of work.

Edited by Gaz1985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in thinking the RAF did not recruit female pilots in case they would later take leave to have children and maybe not even return?

 

Of course that is no longer the case as we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anything is especially wrong with this statement. 

Taking a break because you have young children is commendable but from an employer's point of view is somewhat inconvenient.

 

They can just employ 'foreigners' then.

 

Certainly, if British women don't have kids this would become absolutely crucial...

 

Oh the irony.

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a large company like BT the time off could be absorbed, but small firms with a handful of employees it's just how it is going to be. 

Women generally get a far better deal in the workplace than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anything is especially wrong with this statement. Taking a break because you have young children is commendable but from an employer's point of view is somewhat inconvenient.

 I agree that it might be inconvenient for some employers but I find that working mothers can be a lot more focused in their jobs, less likely to come in with a stinking hangover from nights out with the boys.

I agree if someone takes a lot of time off work they will lose contacts, if your face and authority is not visible people tend to forget you over time, common sense really, so potential customers and employers will look to other people who they can rely on to get the job done. If someone stays in the job for longer and gets more things done they will get more promotions and be more successful than a mother who takes a lot of time off. Nothing nasty about it - just how things work..... in the world of work.

I am a working mother and took 3 months off with my 1st child. I prepared very hard to minimise the disruption while I was away. My male counterparts ignored a lot of work that I was trying to get covered and I ended up talking them through how to do some things on the way to the hospital

Inconvenient for others too.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-forced-out-of-jobs-by-rising-cost-of-childcare-2333282.htmlThat's the reality - obviously under the caring sharing Tory regime, these women can be classed as scroungers and spongers, welfare bill being slashed accordingly - what did Farage say again?

Agreed, I kept up my career even when the cost of childcare and fuel almost exceeded my take home pay just so I could be seen to not just as a "working mother" or claiming benefits (even though I would not have qualified)

If it's a large company like BT the time off could be absorbed, but small firms with a handful of employees it's just how it is going to be. Women generally get a far better deal in the workplace than ever before.

well marginally but the issue to me is the assumption that women either have kids or are successful. You don't hear people saying that working fathers are less sucessful than men without kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change basic biology though.
Fathers get through pregnancy rather more easily as a rule Posted Image 
 

Edited by 4wd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change basic biology though.

Fathers get through pregnancy rather more easily as a rule Posted Image

I do wonder where we would be if men ever had to try to pass a billiard ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there is anything illogical in what Farage said, of course someone who is away from their employment for a extended period of time will be of less value to their employer. I cannot see a logical argument against that fact unless the away time enhances the skills of the worker?
 
Although men can be those who stay at home to look after children it is still a very female dominated area. In most cases a mother will choose to be the partner who stays at home, and the value lost from the work place is atoned for by the value added to the family.
 
The problem we have now is that no value is attached to raising a family, so Farage's statement is taken to be that mothers have less value full stop which of course is only true to those who believe that the job of a housewife has no value.
 
We are increasingly living in a climate where both parents are expected to work while the state administers their children. Nursery, breakfast club, school and after school clubs etc. I think socierty is and will ultimately pay the price for that and the loss of traditional family life.
 
Its easy to take Nigel Farage's remarks in isolation and jump on bashing bandwagon, but there are a lot of people including me who broadly agree with UKIP and the time for change is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC article on it is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25813230

 

To my mind, there is no unfair discrimination involved if we're merely saying that those who take 2-3 years out from their careers are likely to fall behind, e.g. on the pay/bonuses ladder and developing connections in the workplace, and that mothers, due to the norm being to take some maternity leave, are statistically likely to have that problem.

But if women who take time out from their careers to raise children are disadvantaged relative to others who take time off for other reasons, then we have a discrimination problem.

 

I feel that women are damned if they do and damned if they don't- there's the belief that women are selfish if they don't want to have children, or if they want to have careers and children (in both cases, due to a sense of them putting "self" before "family") but there's the belief that stay-at-home mothers are not doing their bit for the economy and have no useful role in society.  I find all of these comparably bad, to be honest.

 

One point to make is that there's a negative image of stay-at-home mums feeling "trapped", ruled by their families, bossed by their husbands, and left with nothing to their lives other than housework and bringing up children, and that working mothers are breaking free from that and getting independence.  Of course, that doesn't have to be anywhere near the truth- a mother can decide to stay at home because her career is unfulfilling and she feels that she would give more to society by prioritising raising the children, and still retain some freedom and independence, and that type of stay-at-home mother tends to be unjustly overlooked.  But the danger with trying to encourage a return to traditional family life is that it would most likely result in women being strongly pressured into having children, sacrificing careers and staying at home, where they would rather not, and consequently feeling "trapped".

 

I often read that the loss of traditional family life is bad for society, but what's often overlooked is that traditional family life (at least in the form that dominated from Victorian times through to the 1950s) was tied in with values that encouraged sexism, homophobia, and to a lesser extent racism.  Could we return to those family values without also inadvertently encouraging a return to those associated negative values?  I think it would be a lot more difficult than most people realise.

Edited by Thundery wintry showers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned - a.k.a Cakie Posted Image

Edited by Gaz1985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree with Triple. These articles are so trivial compared to the real issues that surround us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in thinking the RAF did not recruit female pilots in case they would later take leave to have children and maybe not even return? Of course that is no longer the case as we know.

They did not fly on the front line but they did a vital job in transporting aircraft about the country often with no particular experience of some of the aircraft they flying - they were just given the instruction manual and told to get on with it - I believe at times the aircraft were without full instrumentation and radio, the things modern pilots take for granted - they were at the mercy of the weather and any German fighter that came across them - a number lost their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just makes me laugh, all this UKIP bashing because of what ONE person says, yet there's a party in charge who wants to cripple every age group in this country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PropagandaExpect more any time soon. Then there are the 'breaking news' type stories, sometimes used to 'bury' other bad news...amazing to think, looking back at history, reading a few books et al - we may have actually learnt to read between the lines more, generally speaking of course.

 

I think its important that people realise and understand that the press effectively reports what it is told too. All main parties employ staff for the specific duty of press/media manipulation and both main parties have been caught in recent times with their pants around their ankles on the subject.
 
Its always compelling when these negative stories appear against groups who just happen to be a threat to the party in power, but the obvious nature of timing and convenience has to be questioned.
 
History teaches us not to believe all that we are told and all that we are fed by the media. Pre War Germany is a prime example. Logic suggests we can expect a lot more UKIP bashing over the next 12 months, but the concern should be more about the mechanism behind the trashing machine rather the its output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...