The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The hidden cost of maternity leave > Comments

The hidden cost of maternity leave : Comments

By David Baker, published 20/7/2011

When women return from maternity leave things are never the same in the workplace.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Suzonline "...I agree that we need to help professional people have more children if they wish, which is partly why paid maternity leave was introduced."

But it doesn't. Paid maternity leave supports single mothers and and married motehrs with few children. I have several children and I also know the statistics. Almost all women stop full-time work once they have even one child. That's why average female income is so much less than men's...

Women earn less than men only because bugger-all mothers work full-time. They stop working, or CHOOSE to enjoy the plesure of a lovely work-life balance... Tragically, men feel societal pressure to actually INCREASE their hours of paid work when they become dads... despite deeply wanting to have even some time with their

So professional couples USUALLY become single income couples when they become parents. THose women who continue work USUALLY return eventually to part-time work... and only after a period LONGER than maternity leave.

The only women to return to FULL-TIME professional work after having a kid are those who only have one or two kids... EXACTLY why maternity leave FAILS to help professional couples from having the families thay want... because they don't get maternity leave... because the mothers aren't working long hours anymore.

But single mothers and mothers with only one or maybe two children do return to full-time work... and maternity leave helps them.

See? Social engineering. Taking taxes from professional working parents with few kids and giving it to those who already have been bribed to have many kids
Posted by partTimeParent, Saturday, 23 July 2011 9:50:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"the usual negative rhetoric about women (and spending)."

You might find this enlightening, Pelican

http://she-conomy.com/report/facts-on-women/

From the link:"One huge, affluent segment wields more spending clout than any other: Baby-Boomer women. Born between 1946 and 1964, these women represent a portion of the buying public no marketer can afford to ignore. With successful careers, investments made during the “boom” years, and inheritances from parents or husbands, they are more financially empowered than any previous generation of women. "

and "Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:
91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC PharmaceuticalsAmerican women spend about $5 trillion annually…
Over half the U.S. GDP"

Given that this s a site about marketing, it seems unlikely they'd be incorrect, don't you think?

Never mind, you can take the family credit card down to DJs and take advantage of the sales to console yourself...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 24 July 2011 8:29:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti that comment says more about you than me. I concede that your own prejudices and broad generalisations are not yet transparent to you...but maybe in time. You seem intelligent and even-handed on most issues except where women are concerned.

Anyway I will henceforth stop banging my head against the proverbial gender brick wall.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:30:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My husband was retrenched quite a few years ago in a mass reduction of staff from a large organisation. As an older worker he did eventually find a job but dropped his income considerably. There is considerably more ageism than sexism in today's workforce from my experience.

It is much harder to sell yourself as an older worker in his field. After a time he did improve his position but he did not ask for government assistance. During that time I supported him as he supported me when I was at home with children.

While I do support well targeted social policy (and there would be natural disagreement around how this is defined) I don't support over-generous middle class welfare to the detriment of small business, other taxpayers and most importantly the truly disadvantaged. We have to take more personal responsibility for our decisions while ensuring the real needs of those who are disadvantaged are not ignored. I don't put family choices in the category of disadvantage, it has only become an issue since the push for continual economic growth as the primay value in society. There are other equally more important factors that contribute to wellbeing.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:48:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
Child care centers are an area of growth, together with family law, DV centers, IVF clinics and abortion clinics.

All the things that feminists have brought to enhance society, although much of it has become very expensive.

But did society exist without these feminist enhancements?

Yes, for 1000's of years, and except for plagues, droughts and floods, most societies seemed to exist quite well.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 24 July 2011 11:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, the comment was a joke, but the figures I showed you are not. Whatever you might think, the vast majority of household spending is controlled by women, whether they are going to work or not. when there are no women in a household, men tend to spend their money on practicalities (in my case on tools and machinery) or on entertainment (in my case beer, mostly). Men who are married don't do as much of either of these things compared to men of the same income who are single. On the other hand, in my experience, women who are married and women who are single tend to spend money on the same things, except that married ones often have more money available and hence they can buy more and fancier equivalents, as well as very often being the ones to buy their husband's clothing and other essentials. Most married couples I know have the wife control all the finances. I know at least one man who isn't even allowed to have an EFTPOS card by his wife. If a man does that to a woman, this is defined as domestic violence

Why are you so determined to deny this obvious reality? Further, how does pointing out the bleeding obvious translate to having some form of misogynist agenda? Are you so determined to pretend that black is white that you'll offer up this faux offence instead of addressing the post's content?

I think you support the basis of my argument, so why the blind spot?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 24 July 2011 11:11:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy