You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Oldmanmtb- I agree that you're not especially "privileged" but has it occurred to you that your wife is because that was your choice as a couple? That's not how all women live, so don't tar us with the same brush. Tell her you're having a 4-month break next summer to ride your bike, she can get off her arse and work.
The singularly most disadvantaged group in terms of education right now are white working class boys. This is something that many people on this thread seem to ignore or just don't know about
I know their results are amongst the poorest. But tell me more about the educational disadvantage they suffer?
^ sorry if my post above sounds a bit harsh but it is so frustrating and annoying to hear that couples make some mutual decision that the woman doesn't work (or works fewer hours than the man), and the man decides that all women are privileged! Apart from 3 months travelling when I was 24, two 6-month maternity leaves, and 5 weeks unpaid leave last year, I've worked full-time for the past 27 years.
The singularly most disadvantaged group in terms of education right now are white working class boys. This is something that many people on this thread seem to ignore or just don't know about. You weren't privileged at all and your position today is as much to do with luck and hard work as anyone else.
This isn't a discussion about education, it's about choices and opportunities throughout life. I would be interested in knowing the source of your information on this though?
A disproportionate amount of crime, in particular violent crime, is perpetrated by young black men..
Not just black men, either pretty much all of violent crime is committed by men. I'm quite happy to accuse that group, as a class, but not individually as being the singularly largest cause of the problem. However, applying that as a blanket approach doesn't work as you have correctly stated.
Of course, this is a whole different ball game to the white, male privilege discussion. Too many other factors involved, for example deprevation, racism etc. These also limit the choices that a range of ethnic minorities have to play with.
Why then is it ok to assume that if you’re white and male, you must therefore be privileged?
Because it's true. Your choices have been made within a far wider framework than others. If you don't acknowledge this then you can't fix it. I know it's not palatable, or pleasant to accept you (the generic you, not you personally) have had a head start in life, but it is true.
The difficulty seems to be that "privilege" is quite a loaded word,
Exactly and why many people on this thread still don't seem to understand.
A white working class male has more privilege than a black working class female but they both have way less privilege than the son of a billionaire who attended Eton, Oxford etc,.
Because it's true. Your choices have been made within a far wider framework than others. If you don't acknowledge this then you can't fix it. I know it's not palatable, or pleasant to accept you (the generic you, not you personally) have has a head start in life, but it is true.
Maybe, but minority youngsters in London have far more opportunities than white males in Grimsby. The danger is that you have a generation of minority kids who think they are hard done by and that all white people are privileged and out to **** them. I've met youngsters like that brfore and it is partly what fuels terroriam.
Why has privilege or lack of it, become a game of one upmanship to see who is top of the victim pile?
Kerley, a white working class male from the north has less opportunity than a black female in the south. I don:t know many white working class lads working in finance up tet north.
Tom_W1987 - Member
Because it's true. Your choices have been made within a far wider framework than others. If you don't acknowledge this then you can't fix it. I know it's not palatable, or pleasant to accept you (the generic you, not you personally) have has a head start in life, but it is true.
Maybe, but minority youngsters in London have far more opportunities than white males in Grimsby. The danger is that you have a generation of minority kids who think they are hard done by, that all white people are privileged and out to **** them. I've met youngsters like that brfore and it is partly what fuels terroriam.
Cite?
Why has privilege or lack of it, become a game of one upmanship to see who is top of the victim pile?
It's the modern way, everything is competition now.
I dont have to cite, finance in London is either full of posho white kids or local Asian kids - who have access to London from a young age.
You know we're getting close to equality when men know what an unhappy marriage feels like. 😉
Not just black men, either pretty much all of violent crime is committed by men.
Yes true but it's committed by less than 5% of the total male population (I think the prison population is something like 2.8% to illustrate the point) so the fact that the perpetrators are male doesn't tale anything about masculinity, it only tells you about that 5%.
These also limit the choices that a range of ethnic minorities have to play with.
Absolutely and I don’t think you were suggesting I didn't get that but for clarity I do. There are reasons why young black men are committing such a large amount violent crime (they are massively over represented in the data); it is the consequence of being disenfranchised and we really need to address why. Lack of positive role models, lack of legitimate opportunities, abundance of illegitimate opportunities etc).
Because it's true. Your choices have been made within a far wider framework than others.
The concept is a hypothesis people use to explain why there are differences in life outcomes between social and racial groups.
There is no direct evidence for 'privilege’, it’s a conclusion that people draw in contrast to the negative experiences of others rather than as something you can determine and measure in those that you allege experience it. So for example, if all xyz groups experience some sort of disadvantage in life, therefore if you’re not a member of one of those groups, by exclusion you must be privileged.
It’s a really poor social hypothesis though because it requires no proof, it just is true like you say and any attempt to try and disprove it will be met with a similar trope like response.
You cannot possible derive a conclusion that because abc bad things happen to one group of people, therefore a different group of people must be privileged. That’s really poor reasoning. It’s even more vile when you start to level it at individuals because you’re then also making the mistake of using broad conclusions and large population groups to make punitive judgements aimed at individuals.
This is something Marxism has always been guilty of; when it fails the response is ‘oh well that’s not real Marxism’. It’s a (failed) line of reasoning and logic that the very far left is has always been guilty of (read Karl Popper’s ‘All Life is Problem Solving’ for a more robust explanation of what I’m talking about).
Marxism now, we're a Godwin away from a full house here.
Maybe, but minority youngsters in London have far more opportunities than white males in Grimsby. The danger is that you have a generation of minority kids who think they are hard done by and that all white people are privileged and out to **** them.
Oh I quite agree, sexism, racism, social disadvantage are all significant factors, singling one particular discrimination out without the context is dodgy ground.
You cannot possible derive a conclusion that because abc bad things happen to one group of people, therefore a different group of people must be privileged.
Black people are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people, therefore as a white person I am more privileged in that I am more likely to avoid inconvenient police attention.
I should add when I was younger i worked in a lot of rough areas of London, we drove sporty hatches or dodgy vans, dressed like crims and would skulk around at night and odd times in residential areas, Never randomly stopped, none of my colleagues bar the one BEM officer was ever stopped on sus.
It’s even more vile when you start to level it at individuals because you’re then also making the mistake of using broad conclusions and large population groups to make punitive judgements aimed at individuals.
I refer you to my previous comments regarding individuals versus groups, and also my comments on the context within which these discussions take place - all other things being equal, which in the real world they are patently not.
You cannot possible derive a conclusion that because abc bad things happen to one group of people, therefore a different group of people must be privileged.
I'm not sure that's particularly true and certainly seems to over simplify the information I've stumbled across in my amateur research on the subject. Social science needs to take broad brush approaches and be subject to challenges, exactly like you, and numerous others have done. I have based my opinions on the research I have done, if you can provide any information other than your own direct, and your friends/professional contacts experiences then I'd be quite happy to view it?
Oh I quite agree, sexism, racism, social disadvantage are all significant factors, singling one particular discrimination out without the context is dodgy ground.
Yes, and of course the way in which these factors interact is the important part. The disadvantage associated with being back and poor is not the same as that associated with being black and rich. Or female and disabled etc. There are also limiting factors which are rarely included in the model, e.g.geyond a certain level of poverty or affluence it doesn't matter what colour you are or with a certain social class it doesn't matter what the other factors are. It doesn't help to model these as simple non-interacting non-confounding factors.
White male privilege is a thing, but maybe it is less of an advantage in certain social strata or financial position
White male privilege is a thing, but maybe it is less of an advantage in certain social strata or financial position
Agreed.
Why has privilege or lack of it, become a game of one upmanship to see who is top of the victim pile?
Without working out who is at the top of the victim pile, you can't see who needs the most help!
Though using it as an excuse (not a reason I hasten to add) for antisocial/criminal behaviour does seem to be flagged up by certain sections of the Press for malicious purposes on a regular basis too...
Why has privilege or lack of it, become a game of one upmanship to see who is top of the victim pile?
I'm not sure it has in the context of this debate. However, me and my entire peer group work ourselves into an early grave while wives do hobby jobs/part time jobs/no jobs. Given that, it sticks in my throat to be told how lucky I am and how women are disadvantaged in the workplace when it's clear the sole reason they're disadvantaged in the work place is because they give up full time work en-mass in their mid 30's. ...and then the final insult is men are all told that we're somehow enforcing gender stereotypes by going out to do the work we'd mostly rather not be doing.
However, me and my entire peer group work ourselves into an early grave while wives do hobby jobs/part time jobs/no jobs.
Your lives sound shit, if only we lived in a society that made it easier for women to maintain careers while raising a family...
So...don't do it
🙂
Without working out who is at the top of the victim pile
That right there, the notion that there is a ‘victim pile’ is where the left and right fundamentally disagree.
The left see victims as helpless and incapable rectifying their own problems. The right sees success as the result of an individuals industriousness and personal endeavour.
In making those judgements neither of which are necessarily incompatible, both sides then make negative assumptions about the other group.
Personally while I don’t deny that there are victims, the way the left has politicised the concept of victim hood, giving rise to the notion of grievance politics, is as distasteful as the right’s preponderance for victim blaming.
Outofbreath- I'm amazed that it still hasn't occurred to you that your peer group could be pretty narrow and unrepresentative. I don't know many women who are doing what you describe within your peer group.
I'm not suggesting I'm a victim but I do suspect that I'm paid less than men doing the same job because I know the men drove a hard bargain and negotiated their salaries whereas I just accepted what was offered without negotiation.
We need to stop grouping people together and defining them on a single common trait such as colour, religion, gender ect. That only fuels division and is way too simplistic. There are white people in this country from many other countries, go tell a group of Polish lads they have white privilege and they have an unfair advantage. It's ridiculous and insulting. I suppose all the Irish immigrants who came here in the 1800s were privileged as well because they were white. You are all falling into a trap, the real issue is inequality of wealth and how wealth is unevenly distributed. It so happens that those who benefit the most from that are people who are white males. Of course they are, this is a predominantly white country therefore there have been generations of white families building up obscene amounts of wealth over time. White males are just as likely to suffer from the consequences of that as any other group. We should be looking at the haves and have nots and trying to balance that out. Not stoking up racial and sexual divisions.
However, me and my entire peer group work ourselves into an early grave while wives do hobby jobs/part time jobs/no jobs. Given that, it sticks in my throat to be told how lucky I am.......
It was YOUR CHOICE AS A COUPLE!!
The right sees success as the result of an individuals industriousness and personal endeavour
And this is the epitome of neo-liberalism. The problem with this model is that it then leaves the responsibility for addressing lack of success or disadvantage to the individual or 'big society' and the state does abnegates responsibility.
That right there, the notion that there is a ‘victim pile’ is where the left and right fundamentally disagree.The left see victims as helpless and incapable rectifying their own problems. The right sees success as the result of an individuals industriousness and personal endeavour.
Oh gods make it stop
Your lives sound shit, if only we lived in a society that made it easier for women to maintain careers while raising a family...
We do. It's acheived by allowing women to work part time/give up work and get hobby jobs.
Which is great.
...but when men get attacked for somehow being the winners in this arrangement it's really taking the piss.
...but fin25, you're at the beginning of this process. At the moment she's telling you she's going back to work full time. Then she'll decide part time is better, or that she'd quite like to do part time kitchen design or photography. Or maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones and she'll stay in full time work and you can kick back a bit, but the odds aren't good. The odds are you've been duped. But as Vickypea says, "It was YOUR CHOICE AS A COUPLE!!". So that's ok.
The left see victims as helpless and incapable rectifying their own problems. The right sees success as the result of an individuals industriousness and personal endeavour.
Alas, if it were only that simple!
We need to stop grouping people together and defining them on a single common trait such as colour, religion, gender ect. That only fuels division and is way too simplistic. There are white people in this country from many other countries, go tell a group of Polish lads they have white privilege and they have an unfair advantage. It's ridiculous and insulting. I suppose all the Irish immigrants who came here in the 1800s were privileged as well because they were white. You are all falling into a trap, the real issue is inequality of wealth and how wealth is unevenly distributed. It so happens that those who benefit the most from that are people who are white males. Of course they are, this is a predominantly white country therefore there have been generations of white families building up obscene amounts of wealth over time. White males are just as likely to suffer from the consequences of that as any other group. We should be looking at the haves and have nots and trying to balance that out. Not stoking up racial and sexual divisions.
I agree completely with the sentiment of this, but unfortunately much of the haves and have-nots are in their respective positions precisely because of the racial, sexual, class etc. divisions that society has created. Ignoring this fundamental problem is not getting to the root of the problem.
It was YOUR CHOICE AS A COUPLE!!
Much like your choice not to negotiate for the same wages as males doing the same job?
We need to stop grouping people together and defining them on a single common trait s
Yup, and equal pensions is part of that process.
...but fin25, you're at the beginning of this process. At the moment she's telling you she's going back to work full time. Then she'll decide part time is better, or that she'd quite like to do part time kitchen design or photography. Or maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones and she'll stay in full time work and you can kick back a bit, but the odds aren't good. The odds are you've been duped.
The odds are you don't know shit about my life or my marriage. Just because you've made poor life choices it doesn't mean others have made the same mistakes. If my wife doesn't go back to work we will be unable to pay our mortgage after about a year, once our savings have gone as my wages from my part time job wont be enough.
She doesn't even have a hobby, despite my constant attempts to get her into stuff. Unlike all of us, on a mountain biking forum...
Just because you're older, doesn't mean you're wiser, patronising ****.
There's some pretty wilful misunderstanding of the principle of privilege on this thread
The odds are you don't know shit about my life or my marriage. Just because you've made poor life choices it doesn't mean others have made the same mistakes. If my wife doesn't go back to work we will be unable to pay our mortgage after about a year, once our savings have gone as my wages from my part time job wont be enough.
She doesn't even have a hobby, despite my constant attempts to get her into stuff. Unlike all of us, on a mountain biking forum...
Just because you're older, doesn't mean you're wiser, patronising ****.
Fair critisism. 🙂
Hopefully, in two years time you'll be spending every weekday on the trails with a healthy toddler in the Hamax Seat shouting 'faster' and grins on both your suntanned faces. If it goes that way and you get to spend the working week sharing experiences with your child then I'll be sincerely delighted for you.
It will be a wonderful life for you. You might even say privileged.
It will be a wonderful life for you. You might even say privileged
Don't I know it.
The [url= http://theredpillmovie.com/ ]Redpill documentary [/url]was an interesting view on how "privileged" men are particularly with reference to American divorce and female domestic violence, feminism etc. It was on Amazon Prime Video when I watched it
The Redpill documentary was an interesting view on how "privileged" men are particularly with reference to American divorce and female domestic violence, feminism etc. It was on Amazon Prime Video when I watched it
That is indeed a tought provoking watch.
If we could somehow take everything it says and combine it sympathetically with everything the opposite side of the argument says and reach an understanding that there isn't a 'victim pile' with someone at the top more deserving of social revisionism and someone at the bottom who needs to pay the price for that, we'd be in a much better place.
vickypea - Member
However, me and my entire peer group work ourselves into an early grave while wives do hobby jobs/part time jobs/no jobs. Given that, it sticks in my throat to be told how lucky I am.......
It was YOUR CHOICE AS A COUPLE!!
So without adding further fuel to the fire, why is this a choice as a couple and not female privilege? If the tables were turned, the OP would be a good for nothing scrounger.
And surely this goes some way to explaining why men earn more than women in certain age brackets? The OP is far from alone in his partner not working or heavily reducing her hours once the kids came along.
2 things:
Staying home and raising kids is not easy! Especially when the kids are young. I know because I've done it. Also if you are the sole earner and are bitter that your wife stays at home ask yourself would you rather have had her life or yours for the past x amount of years? OOB I know your answer so dont bother 😉 But everyone else!?
I think white is too broad- FFS white in a comp in Grimbsby vs Black in Charterhouse? Isn't is more useful to talk in class rather than colour?
OOB I know your answer
I feel I have to stand up for Mrs OOB, she deffo works more than her peer group in what I regard as a proper job, but I still resent the accusation that I'm the lucky one who is oppressing her when I'd be delighted for her to work 7 days a week if she wanted.
I feel I have to stand up for Mrs OOB, she deffo works more than her peer group in what I regard as a proper job, but I still resent the accusation that I'm the lucky one who is oppressing her when I'd be delighted for her to work 7 days a week if she wanted.
Where has anyone said you are oppressing her?
I feel I have to stand up for Mrs OOB, she deffo works more than her peer group
What, they don't even make that sandwich?
'Damning with faint praise' comes to mind 😉
Raping your Wife was only made illegal 20yrs ago in Germany.
Gender equality has come a long way in a short time but still has some way to go.
Everyone should have the same life opportunity, healthcare and education regardless of sex, family wealth and race.
Everyone should have the same life opportunity, healthcare and education regardless of sex, family wealth and race.
You forgot quite a number of variables there including things like personality, what kind of sport you like, which team you support, what books you've read, what univeristy you went to, what accent you've got, how you dress, who your friends are.....
Christ we are so far from being remotely egalitarian or meritocratic when it comes to life outcomes it's hard to know where to start.
The most troubling part though is when we are only able to identify the four basic variables against which (often apparent) discrimination is prosecuted.
The gender pay gap for women in their 20s is growing after years of decline, with some young women being paid less than men from the start of their careers, figures have revealed.
So without adding further fuel to the fire, why is this a choice as a couple and not female privilege? If the tables were turned, the OP would be a good for nothing scrounger.
Because they have made the choice that the man will "work himself into an early grave" while the woman does hobbies etc. If the man has agreed to it even though he doesn't like it, he choose that lifestyle. The woman is privileged in that relationship, but don't go extending that label of privilege to the rest of us women.
The gender pay gap for women in their 20s is growing after years of decline, with some young women being paid less than men from the start of their careers, figures have revealed.
Please can you help me find that data on the ONS website, specifically the one that shows the gap for women in their 20s because the it's not in the data they've published:
The grauniad is clearly using figures from a number of sources but unusually have not published direct links.
So without adding further fuel to the fire, why is this a choice as a couple and not female privilege? If the tables were turned, the OP would be a good for nothing scrounger.
Not to me they wouldn't. They would have chosen as a couple for the woman to work and the man to do the other stuff.
I would guess the people calling the man a good for nothing scrounger would be the very same people on this thread struggling with the concept of privilege.
The grauniad is clearly using figures from a number of sources but unusually have not published direct links.
I went to the Fawcet society and looked at their report. They are linking to the ONS and indeed the data they are citing is published today by the ONS.
But this is odd - I've looked at two sets of data from the ONS and on one table, the median gap for 20-29 year olds is 0.8% and on the other, the one you're working from, the gap is 2.2%
Why would two sets of data show quite different results?
I have only a very basic grasp of statistics, but that basic understanding is that the margin of error in any survey sample is 5% (2,5% on either end of the normal distribution.)
If the median gap is 2.2% then is it reasonable to suggest the data falls within the margin of error and therefore ostensibly meaningless? Is that why two sets of data from the ONS show two different results?
So without adding further fuel to the fire, why is this a choice as a couple and not female privilege? If the tables were turned, the OP would be a good for nothing scrounger.Not to me they wouldn't. They would have chosen as a couple for the woman to work and the man to do the other stuff.
^ this.
I would guess the people calling the man a good for nothing scrounger would be the very same people on this thread struggling with the concept of privilege.
I think that would be a good guess. It's surely difficult for all of us to look outside of our peer-experience. Just because most of the females I've encountered/befriended/related with have been (and continue to be) [i]at least[/i] as hard-working and focused as my male friends - but it would be easy to project those views across the board. So when diametrically opposed 'women' such as the wife me tiond earler who literally only makes a sandwich and spends the rest of her life in leisure at her husband's expense...yet is actually [i]working harder[/i] than the majority of other women he encounters?!
How do we see through this confirmation bias and projection? Obviously one of us can't be wholly correct.
Using Guardian links for 'facts' 😆
Using Guardian links for 'facts'
For once, we agree.
Using Guardian links for 'facts'
Actually the Guardian is quoting Fawcett Society and they are working with ONS data. The data set they are referring to is here:
The one I've been looking at is here:
I suspect that the differences in the data they show are explained by simple error but I don't know enough about stat's to dig further into that.
The ONS says its preferred measure is the median, since this helps account for the big impact that a small number of very high earners can have on the data.
Irrespective of the variance in the ages 20 through 40, both sets of data show the same pattern; a very big jump in the gap at the age of 40.
That's the marker we should be trying to understand and the Fawcett Society this morning said that the main problem is that more women are self selecting out of higher paying roles in order to manage child care and that the reason women do that, is because men are discouraged from doing it and discriminated against with things like SMP/SSP imbalances.
Shooting the messenger as a riposte 🙄Using Guardian links for 'facts'
I realised this when you accused the entire ONS database of all wages of having a sampling error and then argued it was not significant. Perhaps you will stop these sort of ripostes to facts you dont like?I have only a very basic grasp of statistics
That Bill Burr video posted back there was initially amusing and thought-provoking (anti-traditionalist/anti-sexist/ageist), right up until he characterised women/feminists wholesale as those who would leave everyone else to burn in a house-fire? Yes, tradition says 'women and children first'. But to characterize feminists as unprincipled no-marks who when threatened revert to 'traditional women' (ie cowardly and entitled, 'save me first, let the others burn') is just, well, shit. And sexist. Oddly enough 🙄
*Edit. Wait, it was a joke? Oh that's OK then. It's not like there aren't jokes about men being mostly drunken rapist child-minded layabouts. Here's another ... 'you know, the thing about negroes...'
... like the thing with peer-groups...
yet there is no problem characterising white men wholesale as privileged or men wholesale as oppressors of women? Hypocrisy.right up until he characterised women/feminists wholesale as those who would leave everyone else to burn in a house-fire?
I realised this when you accused the entire ONS database of all wages of having a sampling error and then argued it was not significant. Perhaps you will stop these sort of ripostes to facts you dont like?
OK so I've read up on sampling error and confidence intervals.
For the data set I was looking at, the margin of error at the 95% confidence interval is 0.2%.
I understand now that if the ONS data shows a median figure of 2.2% in the difference between what men and women earn, then sample error means that difference could be either 1.8% or 2.4%.
Is this correct?
To give some context, based on an average salary of £27,000 the difference is anything from £486 to £648.
there is no problem characterising white men wholesale as privileged or men wholesale as oppressors of women? Hypocrisy.
Wait, I thought white men were 'beta cucks' who can't stand up to the black man any more because the black man is overly-entitled from PC politics?
No, wait, white-men/arabs/jews/foreigners are everything wrong with the world.
*Edit - wait, if it wasn't for white men then we'd all be still be living in mud-huts, huddled together like sly, lazy, cowardly women.
No wait, if it wasn't for different peer-groups, and different peer-group 'humour', then we could maybe all agree on gender and racial stereotypes?
geetee1972 - Member
...the Fawcett Society this morning said that the main problem is that more women are self selecting out of higher paying roles in order to manage child care and that the reason women do that, is because men are discouraged from doing it and discriminated against with things like SMP/SSP imbalances.
I heard that assertion on R4 but it sounded a bit dubious to me.
I have a two year old so I know a bunch of couples in this position we met at NCT etc and I don't think I've ever heard any of the women say they wanted to go back to work once their maternity period is up. Not saying it [i]never [/i]happens but I just don't think it's generally true. Usually they say they don't want to go back to work at all, but have to for money reasons.
I dont think you need to have kids to have reached this conclusion!!!Usually they say they don't want to go back to work at all, but have to for money reasons.
Can we just keep the trolling ironic instead of nasty?
Again, we are all actually much closer in opinion than you think, you're just all jumping down each others throats again for ****s sake. I fon't think there are any hardcire MRAs or SJWs on here.
Keep it interesting, and the goading amusing. *gets popcorn*
One woamn contributing good sense to this thread now, but it's dominated by macho men doing what macho men do.
I'd better get out then as another loud male in the room can only make things worse.
Usually they say they don't want to go back to work at all, but have to for money reasons.
You know that that is literally the only reason most of us work at all?
that was my point i did not mean to express it like " macho men doing what macho men do." apologies if it comes across as such
You know that that is literally the only reason most of us work at all?
Listen, nothing fuels good old-fashioned gender-equality debates better than administering frequent stunning doses of Protestant Work Ethic. Away wi' ye egalitarian claptrap laddie. Real men worked down pit for 26hrs a day just so women could have something restorative to eat (other than a free yogurt) directly after shagging the milkman. Waheeeey, etc.
OK, enough OTT satire-trolling. But really. C'mon now.
I don't think I've ever heard any of the women say they wanted to go back to work once their maternity period is up. Not saying it never happens
This is where I get flummoxed. This summer two of my friends gave birth, and both of them couldn't wait to get back to work so are currently working to balance/enable that imminent eventuality, along with input/changes from the respective fathers/partners. Both are/were self-employed and happy in their careers, facts that could be more informative than a simplistic 'gender-bias' conclusion which is what I tend to argue against. Same experience working in education - many/most of my female colleagues never considered giving up their jobs to full-time child-care. Many also came in to the workforce in their 40s once their children had grown and they were 'freed' from a traditionalist M= breadwinner/F = mom/domestic chores arrangement/expectation.
Peer-experience really does colour our views.
gonefishin - MemberYou know that that is literally the only reason most of us work at all?
Believe it or not, some people are good at and like doing their jobs.
My wife for example, is a primary school teacher specialising in SEN and absolutely loves it. To the extent that she buys extra resources and such out of her own pocket so the kids get the best start in life. You would not have met a more motivated person. In fact she turned down promotion which would have meant considerably more money, because it meant spending less time teaching.
However even she did not want to go back to work after having our little girl, and she was saying that within a few days of her being born. I felt no such change (well a little perhaps but nowhere near the same extent) and AFAIK neither did any of the other dads I know.
So once again I'm not saying it never happens but I think the Fawcett society is overstating the point.
I thought it was because we were all privileged and out chasing our dreams whilst being propped up by women in traditional gender roles?You know that that is literally the only reason most of us work at all?
Somebody better tell the feminists it's not like that afterall.
and AFAIK neither did any of the other dads I know.
Well my anecdote, for what it's worth (i.e. nothing it's an anecdote) is that in my circle of friends who have kids it is the Father who has stayed at home whilst the Mother works.
You know that that is literally the only reason most of us work at all?
Which defeats the idea that full time work is a privilege and men are the winners in the typical UK situation where women are doing, on average, a bit less of it because evil husband makes her stay home to "wash his pants".
and AFAIK neither did any of the other dads I know.
Ditto. Overwhelmingly in my circle of friends and aquaintances after mat leave the mother drops to part time/hobby work and the father picks up the financial slack. I can only recall one case where a father gave up work and mother carried on working and once case where father and mother both went part time.
I think the fact that maternity leave pay can't be taken into account for a mortagage demonstrates is pretty good evidence that women tend not to go back full time after mat leave.
Well my anecdote, for what it's worth (i.e. nothing it's an anecdote) is that in my circle of friends who have kids it is the Father who has stayed at home whilst the Mother works.
In the interest of balance. In my experience, both parents go back to work immediately and leave the babies at home on their own.
Or both parents stay at home on their arses and sent the baby out to get a job.
There we go, we’ve covered all the options now.
Well my anecdote, for what it's worth (i.e. nothing it's an anecdote) is that in my circle of friends who have kids it is the Father who has stayed at home whilst the Mother works.
Just to put some numbers on the anecdote: Did you do NCT? How many in the class? How many of those mothers gave up full time work after Mat Leave.
Or both parents stay at home on their arses and sent the baby out to get a job.
I've vote for that, let the baby have the privilege!
Just to put some numbers on the anecdote: Did you do NCT? How many in the class? How many of those mothers gave up full time work after Mat Leave.
I don't have kids. I was talking about my circle of friends. I'm not really that interested in the details of their respective NCT classes.
I don't have kids.
Oh right. Well FIFW before I had kids I also thought most women went back to work full time after maternity leave.
Now I have kids so I know lots of people with kids and I've learned that women often don't and men usually do.
And when you have kids you quickly get to know lots of other people with kids of the same age. So if 5-6 people on this thread with kids from random areas of the country each reckon a trend is going dramatically one way you're probably getting into a statisticaly meaningful sample size. Say 20 closeish freinds each, maybe 50 nodding aquaintances. Significant numbers of people they know through various local parents whatsapp/facebook groups. People forecast elections on those numbers. I really don't think it's a contentious view that a mjority of women go part time and a mjority of men don't.
Objective evidence of this is a) Statistically women become disadvantaged in the work place around the time they are likely to have children. b) MAternity pay doesn't get taken into account when getting a mortgage. All the evidence points one way.
Somewhere between overwhelmingly anecdotal evidence, conflicting and confusing statistics, MRA vs feminist stereotypes, regional and class differences...there is an answer?
So we're all agreed that women are the lazier/lesser-motivated/more-entitled gender and that men are (ironically) more typically and disproportionally discriminated against compared to other genders and 'races'? While 'white males' overall are generally moreso discriminated against as 'over-privileged' when in actuality it is women who tend to take the 'easy' route of entitled and over-benefited/over-privileged as opposed to their male counterparts? Along with 'non-whites' who are now 'over-privileged' from 'positive discrimination'?
Is that about the state of things?
Which defeats the idea that full time work is a privilege
Who said that full time work is a privilege?.
Privilege would be displayed by the more privileged person getting a job based on things other than their ability to do the job, i.e. sex, colour, background, parents etc,. etc,.
I still can't see how people are struggling so much with the concept of privilege here
So we're all agreed that women are the lazier/lesser-motivated/more-entitled gender and that men are ironically, typically and disproportionally discriminated against compared to other genders and 'races', while 'white males' overall are generally discriminated against as 'over-privileged' when in actuality it is women who tend to take the 'easy' route of entitled and over-benefited/ober-privileged as opposed to their male counterparts? Along with 'non-whites' who are now 'over-privileged' from 'positive discrimination'?
Straw-Woman Fallacy.
Kerley. I think its difficult for privileged people like the vast majority of us on here to understand that they are privileged as they have never seen the other side. Fortunately there are a few who can and their contributions have been valuable IMO. But for too many they simply cannot see or understand it because they have never experienced discrimination
Straw-Woman Fallacy
Fake news. Sad.