08/09/03

Pregnant

Subsidising Pregnant Women

UK Women are being sacked or having pay docked for being pregnant, according to a report yesterday by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Quite right too!

Why should all other employees (and this includes women) have to foot the bill for women who choose to get pregnant?

Why should customers and businesses be forced to subsidise them?

We're not talking about poor women, we're talking about pregnant women. We're talking about women who choooooooooose to get pregnant.

Would someone who choooooooooooooses to take time off from work in order to help the sick, the needy and the dying also be entitled to subsidies from their employers?

Would someone who choooooooooooooses to cut off his arm with a chainsaw expect his employer to compensate him?

Should poorer people be expected to subsidise richer women who chooooooooooooose to get pregnant?

And what has all this got to do with the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission?

This sort of issue has nothing to do with 'equal opportunities'. 

Unlike colour of skin, disability and gender, pregnancy is a matter of choice.

Some people choose to get a better education. Some people choose not to get a better education.

Some people choose to get a better education. Some people choose not to get a better education. Some people choose to work long hours. Some people choose not to do so. Some people choose to do things that will enhance their employability. And some people choose to do things that will reduce their employability..

What has the Equal Opportunities Commission got to do with this sort of thing?

In the UK, for example, it is forbidden for school headteachers even to ask prospective employees (i.e. new teachers) whether or not they are likely to get pregnant in the near future.

Why?

Consider two similarly-qualified women applying for the same teaching job.

One intends to get pregnant in the near future whereas the other does not. Perhaps the latter teacher has already had enough children, or has no intention of having children, or cannot have children.

Why should this latter teacher effectively be discriminated against in the selection process? Indeed, if she already has children, she might well be more desperate to get the job.

And, as far as the job is concerned, she is certainly more suitable for it on the grounds that she is far less likely to abandon it.

Why should the other school staff be denied the chance to have the more suitable candidate come and join them? Why should the taxpayer have to fund such a person when there is a more suitable candidate available? Why should the children in the school be disadvantaged by employing a teacher who is very likely to abandon them?  (And notice how, as is customary, 'the best interests of the child' suddenly disappears out of the window when it comes to favouring women - a few women.)

How many babies, and how many years off work, should a woman be entitled to have

How many babies, and how many years off work, should a woman be entitled to have before there is some kind of consequence in terms of her job? 

A few women are genuinely raped. But we have to corrupt the entire justice system and bias it against all men in order to make convictions easier and to make these few women feel better in the courtroom - regardless of the number of false allegations that are encouraged.

A few women are keen to climb high in their careers and feel that they are discriminated against. And so we have to waste billions of pounds on laws, legal entities, lawsuits and government processes in order to ensure that they are catered for.

A few women experience domestic violence and abuse. But we have to treat all men as if they are guilty and likely to be unworthy of having access to even their own homes and children should their partners make unsubstantiated allegations.

The social and financial costs of catering for the 'comfort' of a few women are already absolutely astronomical.

when women chooooooooose to get pregnant they are not victims.

And when women chooooooooose to get pregnant they are not victims.

On the contrary, women enjoy having children. Why should they be compensated for having children?

Most people are more than happy for women to join the workforce and to climb as high up in their careers as they deserve. But these women should have to take responsibility for the choices that they make and they should not expect everyone else to have to be disadvantaged because of them.

And when you hear current day feminists wailing that all they want for women is 'equality', this is rubbish.

The truth of the matter is that they promote and support policies that are designed to discriminate in favour of women no matter what their behaviours or their choices, and no matter how badly the whole of society is affected by them.

Furthermore, feminists are currently demanding that women should not suffer any employment consequences as a result of opting out of the workforce in order to bear or to bring up children.

But why, for example, should a woman with 4 years of experience in a job be paid the same as a man - or a woman - who has 8 years of experience simply because she chose to get pregnant?

Surely, if a woman wants to take 4 years out of her job then that is her choice!

Consider the following women.

One woman takes 4 years away from her job to have a baby. Another woman takes 4 years away from her job to look after her ageing parents. Another woman takes 4 years away from her job to go and help the starving in Africa. Another woman takes 4 years away from her job to develop her foreign language skills. Another woman takes 4 years away from her job because she is ill.

What is so special about the one who is having a baby?

Furthermore, how many children per woman should taxpayers and businesses be forced to fund? Three? Eight? Ten?

At what point do we say enough is enough?

At what point do we say enough is enough?

And in the interests of 'equality' should not governments and businesses also fund men who decide that 8 hours of work per day interferes with their fatherhood duties?

Why should only women be given the opportunity to bond properly with their offspring?

Finally, the money that is effectively handed out to benefit pregnant women does not come from the air. It is taken out of the pockets of other people and then pumped around a huge and wasteful bureaucracy before it gets to them.

This is madness.

Mothers Becoming Unemployable Maternity laws in the UK have gone too far and may prevent women from being hired, according to [top guru] businessman Sir Alan Sugar - look at the comments.

In my view, giving women special privileges in the workplace results in the following ...

1. Resentment against women throughout society increases.

2. Men are denied jobs that they need in order to support their stay-at-home wives and children.

3. Mothers who wish to stay at home to be full-time mothers will be increasingly pressured to go out to work by their partners and children, and they will be more regarded as parasites and second-class citizens if they do not. Furthermore, working mothers must constitute one of the most over-stretched groups of all. 

4. Government gets to invade even more areas of our lives. Indeed, the special privileges that governments force on to businesses in respect of working mothers is yet another form of hidden tax (i.e. a tax that does not actually count as 'tax') because the costs associated with these privileges have to be paid by the businesses themselves (and, hence, the consumers) rather than by the taxpayers. In other words, we all end up paying for them whether we like it or not - but the government manages to exclude the huge costs of such things from its official tax take.

Woman Shot For No Reason

Woman Shot A 22-year-old pregnant woman has been shot dead in south-west London.

Well. You never know: One day soon women might actually wake up to the fact that supporting feminism is simply going to increase the amount of violence that is going to come their way - on many fronts.

Governments, of course, will love this - but women, most decidedly, will not.

An example:

I was conversing with a teacher friend of mine the other day, and he stated that since the departure of three male colleagues from his school, the levels of violence and bad behaviour of the children had increased significantly. Their female replacements were useless when it came to dealing with the poor behaviours of the children - particularly with regard to the boys.

Well, I presume that these boys will now more likely turn into disruptive, anti-social adults, and that, as such, thousands of women will, in one way or another, be affected badly some day by their unwholesome presence in their communities.

And yet these thousands of women will still mostly argue that women are just as good as men when it comes to bringing up the boys. 

In other words, these women would rather that three female teachers were given their 'job opportunities' than live in safer neighbourhoods.

Goodness. They are stupid. I think that their greed and their self-centredness must have overcome their ability to think rationally.

And, of course, you can say the same sort of thing when talking about just about all areas of employment wherein women are being unfairly 'advantaged' over men these days. A few women get to gain, but everyone else pays some kind of price - (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

"Oh, never mind that our battalion was wiped out. At least we had a woman officer."

"Oh, never mind that my pension money has gone down the tubes. At least the company had a woman investment manager."

"Oh, never mind that my child died on the operating table. At least the surgeon was a woman."

And, in this particular case, one young pregnant woman was shot for no justifiable reason at all.

Still. Never mind, eh? At least the murderer probably had mostly feminist-indoctrinated women for his teachers.

And this is a good thing for women, isn't it?