J K J

What article were you reading? Your rant seems to have no relevance to the content of the piece. The male dominated work environment has to/has changed to accomodate people with different needs (not just women). This does not imply privilege for minorities. The best workplace contributors will not always be men (either childless or with 'good' wives at home) or women that wish to/are forced to fit into the dominant paradigm. Get over it

Rhian/Linden

The author is arguing that women are not equal to men, so you need to take that up with her, not me.

Obviously if the costs, and risks of costs, of employing women are greater than for men, then they are not equal and there is no reason why people should be forced on pain of imprisonment to pretend that they are and pay the difference in costs.

And if the costs, and risks of costs, of employing women are not greater than for men, then we are all agreed that the author is a hypocritical fool seeking sexist special privileges for women.

JKJ

Some of my most successful and productive appointees have been women escaping workplaces dominated by attitudes such as yours.

Employees are human. They have kids, get sick, and need holidays. Some have sick or elderly relatives that occasionally need care. Some are in the army reserve or volunteer firefighters. Some are studying and need time off to attend lectures or exams. All of this can be inconvenient for employers. But if you do what you reasonably can to accommodate their needs, you ultimately get a lot more out of them.

Then there'll be no need to threaten people with imprisonment to force them to pay will there? Because that's what the author is suggesting and you are supporting, you hypocrites. You need to understand these are real people we are talking about, real fathers and mother and brothers and sisters with real needs and real families to care for. They are not just milking-cows and chattels to be ordered around and exploited at will to pay for your overweening selfishness, greed and self-entitlement backed by aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty.

If you can't understand it's self-contradictory to argue that women are equal and not equal both at the same time, then you're too dumb to participate in the discussion, and that's the end of the matter.

Jardine K. Jardine,

I suggest you put in for Mark Scotts job at the abc. You will do well there.

JKJ
where, precisely, does the author "threaten people with imprisonment to force them to pay"?