Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
regarding elections, u claim that females and males are equal when it comes to election candidates.. u claim that the proportion of male and female population is roughly equal, u claim that there are more female graduates than male graduates, but where are the female? why are the men leading everything and women not given their share? you mean to say that all those educated women are unwilling to step out of their comfort zone to seek political rights? surely, the women are stuck somewhere.. somewhere called the KITCHEN..
how many men are willing to stay at hm and be house-husband while the female goes out to work? are you? even in dual-income families, there are conflicts and times when someone has to sacrifice when something crops up.. and the women are the ones who has to take a step back.. don't ask me for stats because there aren't any.. because, quoting u, this is the general observation, that women despite all the education and so-called abilities in the office, are still the ones who has to be home to do the chores, where the men only "help out".. no matter what, eventually the woman has to be the one taking a step back to the family and eventually depending on the man to bring home the bacon..
and what happens if the man goes out to have fun and make merry and refuse to give money to the wife "out of chivalry"? there is a thin line between chivalry and lawful obligation.. and giving money to ur wife is fulfilling your obligation..
if until now u refuse to accept the fact that our society views men and women differently, which in turn leads to a difference in the treatment of the law, den lets not continue this topic anymore.. quite sick and tired of this topic which is so obvious.. that when a marriage turns ugly, it no longer becomes just about qualifications, or men and women being equal.. it may turn violent.. and the woman loses when it turns violent..
you should go ask the women why they are not achieving in the realms of politics, business etc.
as far as i know of, there are no laws prohibiting women from doing any of these things. and yes, i do think that the reason is that most women are too lazy to step out of their comfort zone.
let us start with the enterprise spirit in singaporeans. most men are rather reluctant to step out and risk their stable income to start their own business. i am not saying that men don't, but rather, most are reluctant enterprisers.
and this trend is even more amplified in women. this generation's women are raised from childhood in a culture in which women work only when necessary (family needs etc,). however, with the rapid development of the society, working females are now the norm. however, due to the hangover effects of the 70s, 80s era, females are still rather unwilling to step out into the business world and compete with their male counterparts.
i am also not denying that females can manage their own enterprises really well. look at olivia lum. her company, hyflux, responsible for the newater technology, is now making big bucks, locally and globally.
thus, regarding the issue of women not making it out big in the society, the problems lies with the females themselves, that they are indeed unwilling to step out into the unknown, and carve out their own career.
-
Despite public's acknowledge of the biasness of women's Charter but this obsolete Act has not undergone any changes.I agree a divorced women has to be compensated for her sacrifices for child rearing household chores and contribution to her hubby but the Law must certainly when being abused continued to remain status quo-something is absolutely wrongly.The Govt.dare not take enboldened steps to plug the loopholes and still allow abuses by estranged women to use it to wreak havoc on their husbands. Even on TV channel 8 currently showing at 9pm when the female character was confronted with divorce as initiated by her husband,one other character offered this advice'get as much ailmony as possible-$20,000 per month" to strain her husband and/or get custody of both children and normally women will 70% win custody of the kids-a pre conconceived bias that man is not in best position to shower love and care on his children.The female is not a saint either although her husband has strayed as her daughter was absolutely rude even though still in sec school she sold her mum and her grandmum undies in the internet to buy branded goods.Her son is always malingeering to avoid attending chinese tuition,etc.and this women has all the world and with the grandmum at her disposal to "provide good care" but the children turned out otherwise...fortunately the children have become more matured after the actual divorce as they now know how to protect their mum,a happy ending I hope and for the husband who has strayed and I guess he will be cheated by the mistress of his wealth soon. jojo I don't view all women as bad in a divorce as both parties are at fault as it takes 2 hands to clap but wad I can't condone is those mercenary women who went for their hubbies' neck when marriage turned sour and take advantage of WC just to get even with the men.It is now being made public conscious and public knowledge that there are indeed abuses althouch the Act original intention in the 1960s was to protect the housewives and aunties I believe the SG family Court is quite fair nowadays having the common knowledge that the abuse is on the rise but their hands are still tied esp when division of assets ,granting of police protection order and child custody
-
Originally posted by 787180:
Despite public’s acknowledge of the biasness of women’s Charter but this obsolete Act has not undergone any changes.I agree a divorced women has to be compensated for her sacrifices for child rearing household chores and contribution to her hubby but the Law must certainly when being abused continued to remain status quo-something is absolutely wrongly.The Govt.dare not take enboldened steps to plug the loopholes and still allow abuses by estranged women to use it to wreak havoc on their husbands.
Even on TV channel 8 currently showing at 9pm when the female character was confronted with divorce as initiated by her husband,one other character offered this advice’get as much ailmony as possible-$20,000 per month” to strain her husband and/or get custody of both children and normally women will 70% win custody of the kids-a pre conconceived bias that man is not in best position to shower love and care
on his children.The female is not a saint either although her husband has strayed as her daughter was absolutely rude even though still in sec school she sold her mum and her grandmum undies in the internet to buy branded goods.Her son is always malingeering to avoid attending chinese tuition,etc.and this women has all the world and with the grandmum at her disposal to “provide good care” but the children turned out otherwise…fortunately the children have become more matured after the actual divorce as they now know how to protect their mum,a happy ending I hope and for the husband who has strayed and I guess he will be cheated by the mistress of his wealth soon.jojo I don’t view all women as bad in a divorce as both parties are at fault as it takes 2 hands to clap but wad I can’t condone is those mercenary women who went for their hubbies’ neck when marriage turned sour and take advantage of WC just to get even with the men.It is now being made public conscious and public knowledge that there are indeed abuses althouch the Act original intention in the 1960s was to protect the housewives and aunties
I believe the SG family Court is quite fair nowadays having the common knowledge that the abuse is on the rise but their hands are still tied esp when division of assets ,granting of police protection order and child custody
then blame the black sheep, not take away the law that is trying to help women that seriously need it.. if u are saying that we should review the the charter, fine..
and to deathmaster.. I do not think that laziness is the only reason for them not stepping out.. as u said, hangovers from the 70s, 80s affect them, and guess what, it affects men too.. there are also unspoken biaseness against women in the workforce holding high positions, which will rear its ugly head every now and then.. u cannot solely put the blame on women that the unwillingness is due to their own fault.. if the situation is favourable, u will have seen much more females out there in leading positions..
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
you should go ask the women why they are not achieving in the realms of politics, business etc.
as far as i know of, there are no laws prohibiting women from doing any of these things. and yes, i do think that the reason is that most women are too lazy to step out of their comfort zone.
let us start with the enterprise spirit in singaporeans. most men are rather reluctant to step out and risk their stable income to start their own business. i am not saying that men don't, but rather, most are reluctant enterprisers.
and this trend is even more amplified in women. this generation's women are raised from childhood in a culture in which women work only when necessary (family needs etc,). however, with the rapid development of the society, working females are now the norm. however, due to the hangover effects of the 70s, 80s era, females are still rather unwilling to step out into the business world and compete with their male counterparts.
i am also not denying that females can manage their own enterprises really well. look at olivia lum. her company, hyflux, responsible for the newater technology, is now making big bucks, locally and globally.
thus, regarding the issue of women not making it out big in the society, the problems lies with the females themselves, that they are indeed unwilling to step out into the unknown, and carve out their own career.
Olivia Lum is married ? Got children ?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
and i am sure, with money, women can too go buy a toyboy, just like these men are looking to mail-to-order foreign brides.
u look for a soulmate.. and u claim that a toyboy can be one? i dun see how u can equate toyboys to mail-to-order foreign brides.. not all women can afford toyboys, like not all men can afford mail-to-order brides.. but who do u think lose out more, a single old man or a single old woman? a divorced man with kids or a divorced woman with kids?
and as i said, it is obvious who will be hired between a father of three and a mother of three..
regarding elections, u claim that females and males are equal when it comes to election candidates.. u claim that the proportion of male and female population is roughly equal, u claim that there are more female graduates than male graduates, but where are the female? why are the men leading everything and women not given their share? you mean to say that all those educated women are unwilling to step out of their comfort zone to seek political rights? surely, the women are stuck somewhere.. somewhere called the KITCHEN..
how many men are willing to stay at hm and be house-husband while the female goes out to work? are you? even in dual-income families, there are conflicts and times when someone has to sacrifice when something crops up.. and the women are the ones who has to take a step back.. don't ask me for stats because there aren't any.. because, quoting u, this is the general observation, that women despite all the education and so-called abilities in the office, are still the ones who has to be home to do the chores, where the men only "help out".. no matter what, eventually the woman has to be the one taking a step back to the family and eventually depending on the man to bring home the bacon..
and what happens if the man goes out to have fun and make merry and refuse to give money to the wife "out of chivalry"? there is a thin line between chivalry and lawful obligation.. and giving money to ur wife is fulfilling your obligation..
if until now u refuse to accept the fact that our society views men and women differently, which in turn leads to a difference in the treatment of the law, den lets not continue this topic anymore.. quite sick and tired of this topic which is so obvious.. that when a marriage turns ugly, it no longer becomes just about qualifications, or men and women being equal.. it may turn violent.. and the woman loses when it turns violent..
Dragon, he does not claim that a toyboy is a soulmate, he is merely expressing his disbelief through sarcasm... O.O
Single old man, single old woman... They both lose out equally? I don't see the difference...
Again, regarding employment, what we mean is that the law does not in any way restrict women from working. Even if this stereotypical view existed, it should be challenged in that scope, perhaps a campaign to educate companies and make it unlawful to dismiss a worker based on sexual discrimination. It does not justify hitting men back in other ways to make up for it. Personally, I feel that there are two scopes in discussion that you are confusing: the mainstream beliefs of society, and the laws of Singapore. Just because women MAY be (I'm not even confirming that they are) discriminated against when getting a job, that does not justify the laws being prejudiced against men to balance it out. The correct way to balance it out is to balance BOTH scales and not mix them together. Obviously to some degree there will be a grey area, but surely this can be minimised, far more than it is now.
As for staying home to work... All couples have the decision to both have jobs. Seriously, in this day and age, how many men would force their wives to give up their careers? Even suggest that they are obliged to means divorce papers are probably coming your way already. In fact, if a couple cannot agree on a permanent arrangement regarding careers, they aren't prepared for marriage and shouldn't have got married in the first place. Any marriage counsellor would tell you that the first rule is not to rush in if you're not sure, because this is one of the biggest mistakes.
Yes, providing for your family is both a moral and lawful obligation, but you are forgetting (or suggesting that we should all forget) that there are some cases where it goes too far. We are not suggesting that men should not have to provide for their families at all, just that the lines of distinction within the law be adjusted to be in equal favour of both sexes, while leaving that grey area for discretion. Yes, decisions can be appealed, by why bother waiting for the appeal? As deathmaster and richard geist (in the link provided on caning) say: If they don't go outside reason, they will not be hurt by the laws. So why leave the gap there in the first place? The laws we are suggesting are laws that will not be violated when something reasonable is asked for. We're not saying women should not be provided for at all in a divorce, rather there should be clearer distinctions to protect men from this situation.
Yes, people in our society may view men and women differently. I therefore set this challenge to you: go into any school in Singapore, even RI or ACSI or Hwa Chong, and tell me that there isn't a single person in there who isn't racially prejudiced. We've all heard the chinese students calling students with darker skin names and all that. (I shall not go into specifics in order to prevent anyone's feelings from being hurt excessively.) So our society perceives people of different races differently, does that mean we support racial prejudice? No, we have strict laws against sedition and racism, and I challenge anyone here to say that they shouldn't be there.
As for a marriage going bad... I think deathmaster has already proven how men can get hurt financially and emotionally, and physical abuse is not out of the question either. (Some men may be unwilling to retaliate and may allow their spouses to physically abuse them.)
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
then blame the black sheep, not take away the law that is trying to help women that seriously need it.. if u are saying that we should review the the charter, fine..
and to deathmaster.. I do not think that laziness is the only reason for them not stepping out.. as u said, hangovers from the 70s, 80s affect them, and guess what, it affects men too.. there are also unspoken biaseness against women in the workforce holding high positions, which will rear its ugly head every now and then.. u cannot solely put the blame on women that the unwillingness is due to their own fault.. if the situation is favourable, u will have seen much more females out there in leading positions..
Yes, we are saying that the charter should be reviewed, and possibly, if required to balance the system while protecting the rights of women, a men's charter be established as well.We are not seeking to remove all protection from women. We're just saying that men should receive some protection too.
To VoR and 787180: I appreciate your support but no personal attacks please. That would help to keep the discussion more neutral and also prevent rogue moderators from shutting our thread down. 787180, I noticed your last post was rather reasonable and totally free from personal insults so thank you and please keep it that way...
That's not to say that all your arguements have been trash, I think many of your points were exceptionally brilliant and valid.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Yes, we are saying that the charter should be reviewed, and possibly, if required to balance the system while protecting the rights of women, a men's charter be established as well.We are not seeking to remove all protection from women. We're just saying that men should receive some protection too.
To VoR and 787180: I appreciate your support but no personal attacks please. That would help to keep the discussion more neutral and also prevent rogue moderators from shutting our thread down. 787180, I noticed your last post was rather reasonable and totally free from personal insults so thank you and please keep it that way...
That's not to say that all your arguements have been trash, I think many of your points were exceptionally brilliant and valid.
Ok Mr Sean,
Have you spoken to a Family lawyer already ?
I assume you haven't.
Anyway.. what role does your parents play in your family ?
Is your father the one to stay at home ?
Is your mother a working mom ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Ok Mr Sean,
Have you spoken to a Family lawyer already ?
I assume you haven't.
Anyway.. what role does your parents play in your family ?
Is your father the one to stay at home ?
Is your mother a working mom ?
Both my parents are working and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see why this cannot be a viable solution... -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Olivia Lum is married ? Got children ?
why does marital status matter? its her choice not to be married.to quote some singapore woman who is married and have children, and have a successful career, there's Ho Ching, u know....
and it is not as if singaporean wives nowadays take much care of their household and kids.
many people are hiring maids, in some case, multiple maids to look after the house, their kids and their elderly parents. kids are sent to childcare centers or to their grandparents' house.
and working parentS are actually quite normal in singapore.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
and to deathmaster.. I do not think that laziness is the only reason for them not stepping out.. as u said, hangovers from the 70s, 80s affect them, and guess what, it affects men too.. there are also unspoken biaseness against women in the workforce holding high positions, which will rear its ugly head every now and then.. u cannot solely put the blame on women that the unwillingness is due to their own fault.. if the situation is favourable, u will have seen much more females out there in leading positions..
ya, but now the workforce are now mostly youth dominated.yes, there are also male dominated realms, such as construction and engineering, but i don't think most females are interested in those field, so it probably doesn't matter much.
and speaking of employment, why can't women be more proactive on their part. instead of waiting for employment from male businessman, why can they become entrepreneur, become businesswomen who hire people? that way, they can choose only women to work for them, if they wish to.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
why does marital status matter? its her choice not to be married.to quote some singapore woman who is married and have children, and have a successful career, there's Ho Ching, u know....
and it is not as if singaporean wives nowadays take much care of their household and kids.
many people are hiring maids, in some case, multiple maids to look after the house, their kids and their elderly parents. kids are sent to childcare centers or to their grandparents' house.
and working parentS are actually quite normal in singapore.
Oh sure it doesn't matter. .. who are you kidding ? HO CHING ?? Bwahahahaha ! Do you KNOW who she is ????
Sure.. working parents are normal.. but it doesn't mean it's the best for a family...
What's so bad about having more latch key babies and kids who grow up with a maid or a non parent ? IF the successful women even bother having any at all .
The more successful a man is.. the more children he is likely to have.
The more successful a woman is.. the less likely she will have children.
Ya telling me it ain't work this way ? LOL.....
HAIL THE FOREIGN IMPORTS !!! Bring in the foreign SG replacements !!
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Both my parents are working and I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see why this cannot be a viable solution...Ahh.. so your mom works from the day you born ?
And is she earning much more than your dad ?
If one day your parents get divorce.. what kind of arrangements will you prefer ?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
ya, but now the workforce are now mostly youth dominated.yes, there are also male dominated realms, such as construction and engineering, but i don't think most females are interested in those field, so it probably doesn't matter much.
and speaking of employment, why can't women be more proactive on their part. instead of waiting for employment from male businessman, why can they become entrepreneur, become businesswomen who hire people? that way, they can choose only women to work for them, if they wish to.
Why would a woman only hire women ?
I prefer to hire all hot young sexy men to come work for me !!
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Why would a woman only hire women ?
I prefer to hire all hot young sexy men to come work for me !!
even u as a woman is not interested in hiring women, it tells alot about the so called gender discrimination of our society. -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Ahh.. so your mom works from the day you born ?
And is she earning much more than your dad ?
If one day your parents get divorce.. what kind of arrangements will you prefer ?
Well not exactly, she was working since before I was born. Well of course that excludes maternal leave. (Another show of support from the government for women, I might add.) Does it matter?As for how much she is earning... I can't go into specifics because it's their private information and I shouldn't be posting it all over the internet, but I think it's safe to say that my mom has greater job security, yes. As for income, I'm not too sure, but she's been in this job for a very long time (I believe she claimed the highest long-service award available not too long ago) so it can't be too low.
As for if my parents were divorced... I'd say both of them would be capable of supporting themselves. I wouldn't mind staying with either party, of course visitation rights should be established. Paying for myself/ siblings... Probably contribution from both sides, but there should be a regular review to ensure this money isn't just going into one party's pocket and is actually needed.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
even u as a woman is not interested in hiring women, it tells alot about the so called gender discrimination of our society.Uh huh.. I never say there's no gender discrimination did I ?
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Well not exactly, she was working since before I was born. Well of course that excludes maternal leave. (Another show of support from the government for women, I might add.) Does it matter?As for how much she is earning... I can't go into specifics because it's their private information and I shouldn't be posting it all over the internet, but I think it's safe to say that my mom has greater job security, yes. As for income, I'm not too sure, but she's been in this job for a very long time (I believe she claimed the highest long-service award available not too long ago) so it can't be too low.
As for if my parents were divorced... I'd say both of them would be capable of supporting themselves. I wouldn't mind staying with either party, of course visitation rights should be established. Paying for myself/ siblings... Probably contribution from both sides, but there should be a regular review to ensure this money isn't just going into one party's pocket and is actually needed.
I see.
So you believe your mom should not have to claim anything if your dad decides to go off with another woman ?
If your dad owns the property you are living in now.. are you expecting your mother to pack her bags and go rent a place outside on her own, and only have visitation rights to you and your siblings ?
So when you were a baby till you are old enough to take care of yourself.. who took care of you ?
How is your relationship with your father ? Is he very much involved with your life as much as your mother ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I see.
So you believe your mom should not have to claim anything if your dad decides to go off with another woman ?
If your dad owns the property you are living in now.. are you expecting your mother to pack her bags and go rent a place outside on her own, and only have visitation rights to you and your siblings ?
So when you were a baby till you are old enough to take care of yourself.. who took care of you ?
How is your relationship with your father ? Is he very much involved with your life as much as your mother ?
No, she probably wouldn't need to claim much, except perhaps of course for separate living arrangements maybe there should be a joint contribution.
Neither of my parents were involved in my life much. They played equal roles, but yes I admit I'm closer to my grandparents because they took care of me from young, mostly.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Uh huh.. I never say there's no gender discrimination did I ?
i am saying that the claims of your so called "gender discrimination" seems to originate from you women instead of from men.if women themselves feel inferior, lacking confidence in themselves and other women, there's nothing men can do to actually remove the "gender discrimination".
and from the above posts, i somewhat gathered the impression that even women themselves are reluctant to employ pregnant women and mothers to work for them, it does tell alot about the mentality of singaporean women.
it may still be acceptable and understandable if men discriminate women, but it is kind of absurd when women themselves too discriminate against fellow women, then to complain about "gender discrimination" against them. what double standards....
it is like someone chopping off her own foot, to later complain that it is unfair that her foot got chopped off.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i am saying that the claims of your so called "gender discrimination" seems to originate from you women instead of from men.if women themselves feel inferior, lacking confidence in themselves and other women, there's nothing men can do to actually remove the "gender discrimination".
and from the above posts, i somewhat gathered the impression that even women themselves are reluctant to employ pregnant women and mothers to work for them, it does tell alot about the mentality of singaporean women.
it may still be acceptable and understandable if men discriminate women, but it is kind of absurd when women themselves too discriminate against fellow women, then to complain about "gender discrimination" against them. what double standards....
it is like someone chopping off her own foot, to later complain that it is unfair that her foot got chopped off.
????
Are you saying it is ok for men to discriminate against pregnant women and mothers ?
And not ok for women to do the same ?
What I wanted to highlight was the fact that mothers will and DO face discriminations at work.
Your argument was that women DO NOT face discriminations at work. SO dude..you've just proven my point ain't it ?
And who cares where the origin of the discrimination comes from ? It is irrelevant. Because even if women are not the origin.. men will still discriminate against mothers at work.
So yes.. we now all agree that women DO face discriminations at work.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
????
Are you saying it is ok for men to discriminate against pregnant women and mothers ?
And not ok for women to do the same ?
What I wanted to highlight was the fact that mothers will and DO face discriminations at work.
Your argument was that women DO NOT face discriminations at work. SO dude..you've just proven my point ain't it ?
And who cares where the origin of the discrimination comes from ? It is irrelevant. Because even if women are not the origin.. men will still discriminate against mothers at work.
So yes.. we now all agree that women DO face discriminations at work.
yes and no. my original point is that this so called "discrimination" does not originates from men, and you too have proven me right.
it is women who are discriminating against fellow women.
and you got my point abt men discriminating against women wrong.
what i meant to say is that it is fair to cry discrimination against women if men are the main and only party involved, but when it is the women themselves who discriminate against their fellow women, it is not exactly fair to portray themselves as victims of "male dominance".
it is not men's fault if women choose to intensify discrimination against fellow women. thus, all the more that men should not be victimise by being roped into this conflict within women.
if women themselves can blatently follow such double standards, i can't see why they can be fair and impartial when it comes to moral judgements, divorce agreements. etc.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
yes and no. my original point is that this so called "discrimination" does not originates from men, and you too have proven me right.
it is women who are discriminating against fellow women.
and you got my point abt men discriminating against women wrong.
what i meant to say is that it is fair to cry discrimination against women if men are the main and only party involved, but when it is the women themselves who discriminate against their fellow women, it is not exactly fair to portray themselves as victims of "male dominance".
it is not men's fault if women choose to intensify discrimination against fellow women. thus, all the more that men should not be victimise by being roped into this conflict within women.
if women themselves can blatently follow such double standards, i can't see why they can be fair and impartial when it comes to moral judgements, divorce agreements. etc.
I never say that it is fair did I ?
And like I said.. so what if that discrimination originates from a cow or a giraffe ? Women is being discriminated, because of the limitations during and post pregnancy.
Just because we are women does not means the inconvenience for hiring a pregnant woman or mother of young children doesn't apply.
We can only try to be Understanding to these women.. but cannot say we are not affected by the circumstances.
You as a men has a choice NOT to discriminate against such women. but you choose to.. so why blame it on women who do ?
What are you trying to prove ? That it is really women's fault for such discrimination ?????
If you don't wanna discriminate, then don't. Why the finger pointing ?
Just because someone else is doing it.. doesn't means you are now not guilty of doing it too.
And like I said.. a woman has to sacrifice much more than men to stay in her career. So what are you still not satisfied with ?
That women are more guilty of discriminating and men less guilty ?
The answer is .. we are either guilty or not guilty of such act. Yes or No, not more or less.
And both men AND women are guilty of such act of discrimination.
So we agree that women do get discriminated at work.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
????
Are you saying it is ok for men to discriminate against pregnant women and mothers ?
And not ok for women to do the same ?
What I wanted to highlight was the fact that mothers will and DO face discriminations at work.
Your argument was that women DO NOT face discriminations at work. SO dude..you've just proven my point ain't it ?
And who cares where the origin of the discrimination comes from ? It is irrelevant. Because even if women are not the origin.. men will still discriminate against mothers at work.
So yes.. we now all agree that women DO face discriminations at work.
men face discrimination at work too right? As to which is more discriminated, I doubt any one has the answer. As for pregnant women, it's not discrimination merely practicality and business sense. I'll give you an example,lets take 2 males everything the same but you know one of them (male a) has to be gone about 5 months later for 2 months and you will have to pay him for the 2 months which is not included in his leave. Tell me which one would you choose to employ? Forget about loyalty issues, both are as likely or unlikely to leave. Now replace male a with a pregnant female and you get your answer. -
Originally posted by hisoka:
men face discrimination at work too right? As to which is more discriminated, I doubt any one has the answer. As for pregnant women, it's not discrimination merely practicality and business sense. I'll give you an example,lets take 2 males everything the same but you know one of them (male a) has to be gone about 5 months later for 2 months and you will have to pay him for the 2 months which is not included in his leave. Tell me which one would you choose to employ? Forget about loyalty issues, both are as likely or unlikely to leave. Now replace male a with a pregnant female and you get your answer.Practicality or business sense.. it is still a form of discrimination.
When you choose one over another.. without regards to individual merits you are already discriminating.
In the case of men vs men.. Local men with reservist do face discrimination vs foreigners who has no obligation to serve reservists. So, in this regards.. ofcors employers will discriminate against the local men. That is why I do not agree with the open door policy our gahmen implemented.
But when you are comparing a local man vs a mother for potential employee , employers will ofcors prefer to hire the man. So in that sense.. employers are already discriminating against a mother, (even if the individual ability may be the same).
-
Lets send the women engineers to site.
