Flexible working is quite different from allowing people time off every month, which can and definitely will be abused. By the way, companies with all men would out-perform comapnies with all women, if we go on statistics. Is it fair that employers would choose a man over a woman based on the facts I have listed earlier, all things being equal?Originally Posted by Toby
That's not what is being proposed. I've no idea why you're so hellbent on demonstrating your inability to read beyond headlines, but you're doing a stellar job.
You don't even know what is being proposed, do you? That is clearly one of the proposals, at the very least. I didn't see any other specifics mentioned.
There is no 'specific' about 'extra time off', as you keep attempting to paint it. You either haven't even opened the link, or you haven't understood what you've read within.
There's no specifics, other than periodz, as to why a working pattern should be changed. I've yet to hear an example that would benefit men, specifically.
Less gossip in the office.
That's because workplaces and the working world in general is a hangover from the time when men worked and women were homemakers, so workplaces were by default set up around the needs of men. The changes required reflect a move from that to a time when women are also in the workplace on an equal basis to men. What would be a man specific change to a working pattern? I suppose I should be championing time off for laser hair treatment if required, but that would just be giving Lewis what he wants.
I'll agree that women take the piss more then men with flexible times and the 'need to look after the kids' option gets trawled out many times, this taken from working in a (large) majority female office. However, if I could happily get away with the same, then I would.
Test.
That is still largely the case, and what's more, many people are perfectly happy with it. Why do you think there are sites for women looking for rich men and not the reverse?
The quoted is a post of astoundingly poor quality.
So what? That's not an argument against flexibility. Those who still want to work normal 9 to 5 hours could do so. You're arguing against allowing people the choice because not all of them would take it.
The quoted is a post of astoundingly poor quality.
I won't bother going into why, just take my word for it.
It's an argument against flexibility which only seems to go one way. You're actually the one being sexist by perpetuating the myth that women can't handle their bodily function, when 90% can. Those who cannot should be allowed time off as anyone else with a condition should be.
I hope you agree with me that the pay gap is a complete myth?
You're a thunderously stupid man if you still believe that's what is being said. Even by your standards you're looking particularly dense here.
I made a point, and rather than addressing it you posted two pieces of unrelated fiction. You then go on to berate me and others for not addressing a point that you yourself do not understand. My turds are more intelligent than you, and more likeable.
For someone who was going on about critical thinking just the other day, there's a glaring lack of it from Harold.
It's certainly the main trhust, at the very least. I didn't see any comment about anything else which would warrant the same attention. Please inform me if this happens.
No, you didn't make a point. You made a barb, which furthers the conversation not one bit and was not intended to. It's usually know as 'disrupting the thread' when some people do the same. The only reason you like and appreciate your turds is because of their colour.
The latest post is comfortably the most stupid thing you've posted on this page, when even making the podium would have been quite something.
Sometimes when you're just bad at something you have to stop doing it. I can't play football, so I don't. With you, it's using or interpreting words.
So how do we feel about periods? Can we trust them? And, can we blame the Eurozone for them?
Shut up.
Are you trying to silence me? You're trying to silence me.
What are you arguing against HB? It looks like good business practice to be reactive to your workforce needs.
By all means, carry on.
It's amazing, isn't it? Everyone here seems to be in full agreement and yet it seems the public at large (and many writers, including the woman I quoted) see it as a massive lol. It's certainly reactive to the needs of 10% of those with a vagina.
Not really what I asked. Are men in that company not going to be able to have flexible hours?
The woman you quoted misinterpreted it in the same way you have.
Who knows? It's not mentioned. If this is following the model in Japan then women get 2 paid sick days per month. Nice if you can get it.
Silly her!
I can see a fair argument against it being treated as additional sick leave for women only. Maybe the silly article you posted thought that's what it was. But it's not, so it was definitely silly.
Maybe that's what it's heading towards? There's no actual information of how it works, anyway.
So why the fuck are you getting upset about it you silly sod?
The pieces I've read in Slate, The Independent and the one I posted earlier, which I forget now, all draw on the fact that we do not know how this would be implemented. Would it be paid, for example? No amount of your silly pops will answer this.
Well what have I said that means I shouldn't be against this?
I've got a Porsche.
It's not somebody dictating from on high that women should be off work when menstruating - it's an employer opening dialogue with their employees on how they would like to work around 'cycles' in their lives, whether that be menstrual, circadian or otherwise.
Beyond what they've put in place themselves (and the quotes from Baxter explicitly mention taking time off during periods to be made up at a later date, i.e. basic flexitime that already exists in thousands of workplaces around the country), they're just proposing that employers discuss it with their staff and decide what would work for that particular workplace.
Anybody who thinks it says more than that simply hasn't read it properly, so you can plead to authority all you like, but you'll still be hammering away at a nonsense point.
But how do we know this isn't going to lead to women ruining the army? That certainly seems to be the thrust of it. Besides, why do more men kill themselves than women? Surely you agree that that isn't the answer?
Right, let's se how many men there work around their 'cycles', then. You've also stated that they will derfinitewly make up these days at a later date, which was not stated. Flexitime does exist - but it is not predicated on your sexual organs. You keep asserting that you know how this will work when you do not. If it follows the Japanese model, which she alludes to by the way, then they will have 2 paid sick days a month.
It won't. You know why? Because women who go into the army won't be feminists who complain about their normal bodily functions.
More men kill themselves because we live in a world where traditional men's strengths are frowned upon, family and law courts do not treat them fairly, and feminine qualities are lauded.
Working when they feel they will be most effective? Plenty men and women in plenty of industries already do exactly that.
Where have I said 'definitely'? All I've said is that there is a suggestion that is the case and absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, which rather contradicts your nonsense about women being 'given extra time off'.You've also stated that they will derfinitewly make up these days at a later date, which was not stated.
This isn't definitively either. It's a female employer saying, 'I've seen women struggle to work at their best while menstruating' and using that as impetus to talk about flexible working hours. That's it.Flexitime does exist - but it is not predicated on your sexual organs.
What?You keep asserting that you know how this will work when you do not.
Where does she mention the Japanese model?If it follows the Japanese model, which she alludes to by the way, then they will have 2 paid sick days a month.
caps
Nevermind the men who kill themselves who feel pressure to behave in traditionally masculine ways, though. They're not real men so they don't matter.
Fuck sakes I just had a whole reply of sheer donnage which showed people up and closed it by accident. So I will just use the best bits which are secially lol to anyone with sense.
Firstly lol at this
Yes women are superhumans!
Yea, huge, massive misconception, that.
Yea, nothing to back that up but just believe me, anyway!
Well, this is clearly for men, too. Clearly. I, for one, am not sure how I could cope without menstruality conciousness.The school teaches “a radical new approach to woman's health and wellbeing; creativity and leadership; and spiritual life based on the power of our menstruality consciousness.”
More outlandish claims as to the superhuman ability of women. Despite the fact she claimed earlier that they were '3 times as effective in this time', for which no evidence was cited of course, that apparently equates to the work of '10 people'. Astonishing logic.
Can't argue with that level of critical thinking. More man-hating, belittling tripe. But that's okay. Never mind that men account for 96% of workplace deaths since they work in much more dangerous jobs than 'an office'.
What? No, she's there for men as well! Can't you see that!Pope, who describes herself as a women’s leadership coach and educator in the “field of menstruality”
Neckbeard cucks lol.
Yes, and maybe that kind of fuzzy thinking is why women do not make good leaders. The women who do make good leaders demonstrate more manly qualities, a'la Thatcher.
Nothing said there about making the time up. Sounds quite Japanese to me, but we will soon see as they will be having a seminar soon. I will crow loudly, I fear (for you).The seminar will tackle questions surrounding the issue, such as whether taking time off due to periods threatens women's employability or whether it is unfair to men.
It will also explore whether it is feasible for women to take time off every month.
It's surprising that has been going up and up as our society has become more feminine, isn't it? It's almost as if there's a direct correlation between suicide rates and the rise of feminism. And it's not just 'men'. It's white men who have seen the biggest rise. No identity any more, as feminism and anti-racist (aka anti-white) pressure has made it seem like there is no place for many white men.
Well in, Harold. Pope and Baxter won't be showing their faces around here any time soon.
Glad you've cracked it, mate. Hard to believe it was so simple but its good thing we have such an inquisitive mind to suss these things out.
Well I can show a correlation. Where's the evidence for your conclusion?
What have you decided my 'conclusion' is?
Suicide rates have gone up while child mortality rates have gone down by the way. Maybe those who kill themselves were dying prematurely previously.
Hey, the data correlates.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
