Reply to: Critical Worker

[vetran]

Now AtW has posted drivel I got confused

FTFY

Do explain why you think the current situation is discriminatory?

[d000hg]

Now AtW has exposed you as more racist than Katy Holmes it all makes sense really.

[vetran]

I didn't shout, I politely explained. "I'm not discriminating I'm just investigating"... ok sure bro.

whatever!

[vetran]

Just wondering, who was keeping count? And why?

Its quite noticeable when you walk into an assembly or a school play with hundreds of females and you are one of the only men there, if you also meet up to drink / dine with them and their kids are your kids friends then you know who is there and look forward to it. A new dad was quickly adopted as a potential beer tent attendee or BBQ volunteer etc.

You also notice it when you keep saying hi Abdul, Peter, Daniel, Sara,Paula,Anne and then twenty more ladies names.

There were a few others occasionally but our quartet was by far the most common male attendees, we very rarely missed an event that was booked in the school calendar.

[d000hg]

I am not making assumptions about an individual I am investigating causes like you should be doing.

Just shouting discrimination is not helpful if you are trying to fix something.

I didn't shout, I politely explained. "I'm not discriminating I'm just investigating"... ok sure bro.

[Paralytic]

I was one of the 4 fathers that made it to most performances for my children (I mainly had a decent boss and delivered what they needed and more) in the last decade. The others were on night shift or long term sick.

Just wondering, who was keeping count? And why?

[vetran]

Making assumptions about an individual based even on true generalities IS discrimination. You don't need to put it in quotes.

I am not making assumptions about an individual I am investigating causes like you should be doing.

Just shouting discrimination is not helpful if you are trying to fix something.

[d000hg]

It may be 'discriminatory' but until men start to have babies then it will probably be the reality in many jobs.

Making assumptions about an individual based even on true generalities IS discrimination. You don't need to put it in quotes.

[vetran]

Statistically yes, but assuming it in every case is perhaps discriminatory. I wonder what % traditional man-woman family households the woman earns as much or more? 10% would mean the assumption is actually pretty accurate, 40% would mean you are very often wrong to assume.

It may be 'discriminatory' but until men start to have babies then it will probably be the reality in many jobs. If you are equal earners the mother is simply more likely to look after the kids for the reasons above.

If someone goes on Maternity its a year out of work and probable child care duties for the next few years. I have literally heard someone opine on not hiring potential mummies applying for a specific job they were very senior.

Many women take the Maternity pay then a month before returning hand in their notice, the employer is not allowed to backfill the post so has to pay a premium for a temp who then may or not take the end job.

Many women actually choose to do the childcare duties as their right, look how few Fathers get outright custody. Again changing.

Many women are becoming more senior in companies so hopefully balancing childcare with work will get a better chance.

Travelling for work is much less common due to both Covid and technology so being flown around the world or driving to Newcastle at 3pm is less likely now.

I am just telling how it worked for me and others plus an explanation why in my opinion.

[d000hg]

Currently its the truth.

Statistically yes, but assuming it in every case is perhaps discriminatory. I wonder what % traditional man-woman family households the woman earns as much or more? 10% would mean the assumption is actually pretty accurate, 40% would mean you are very often wrong to assume.

[vetran]

Yes, that's sadly true. There is still the perception that the women contribute less financially so they may as well stay at home.

Currently its the truth.

If you have children at least one of you has to look after them for about 16 years (off and on - including doctors appointments IST days etc.). It is frequently the mother that chooses to perform those tasks based on a sensible review of both parents earning power. I do help where I can but to be the primary carer when pursuing a well paid job would require a lot more understanding employer than existed 25 years ago.

When we decided to have kids my wife and I discussed this, as my earning potential at the was considerably higher than hers and it was likely to stay that way (it has) we decided she would stay at home and I would run round the world & country working late at short notice etc earning the money.

Times my wife's work would have prevented her picking the kids up from school <10.
Times my work would have physically prevented her picking the kids up from school >1000s.

Rather than send my wife back to an office to work we decided child minding was the best solution so she could stay with our kids and earn money. I helped fund the training and supported her , its been one of my best investments!

It worked for us and it works for a lot of other couples, the lower earner still takes on the overlap childcare as the primary earner is expected to be more available.


Things are changing because more women are going to University and then marrying / co-habiting down on earning power. 2 sets of minded parents have had a woman as an obvious prime earner in recent years, the father tends to pick up more.

I have more freedom to get involved as employers get more enlightened. I was one of the 4 fathers that made it to most performances for my children (I mainly had a decent boss and delivered what they needed and more) in the last decade. The others were on night shift or long term sick. The numbers though are raising, the school did a Dad's breakfast and it was very successful.

[d000hg]

I f*****g hate unusual spellings of names. I've got the least popular spelling of my name and it's a right pain in the arse. Having to spell your name every single time you talk to someone sucks. The child grows up with any name they are given so why do parents chose an odd spelling because they want to be a bit different. It's a curse to the child for the rest of their life, it's not cool.

My other half had three different isobels in one class and it caused no end of problems, for what? So their millennial parents could be different?

Pisses me right off.

Why don't you change your name, then you could have data proving you've made yourself more popular.

[AtW]

Time to move to a more efficient system - hexadecimal numbers...

[northernladuk]

I f*****g hate unusual spellings of names. I've got the least popular spelling of my name and it's a right pain in the arse. Having to spell your name every single time you talk to someone sucks. The child grows up with any name they are given so why do parents chose an odd spelling because they want to be a bit different. It's a curse to the child for the rest of their life, it's not cool.

My other half had three different isobels in one class and it caused no end of problems, for what? So their millennial parents could be different?

Pisses me right off.

[vetran]

You fixed absolutely nothing for me as I looked the names up in a baby name list. I don't know why you have to make racist digs all the time.

Actually Mohammed/Mohamed/Mohammad are different spellings of the same name based on a single historic person. If you combine them together it comes out top. Strange they combine Jon & John (the most popular name in the 50s-70s) but not the names of the Prophet.

Its data not racism.

here

Baby names in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

oh look they even have a standard explanation. I wonder if combining the names of the apostles would take the top spot?

The popularity of the name Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad - Office for National Statistics