Talk

Advanced search

Daily Mail: How Harman has done huge harm to women

(18 Posts)
ABetaDad Sun 18-Oct-09 08:19:32

Following on from this thread the Daily Mail has followed up with another article by Amanda Platell

"How Harman has done huge harm to women"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220949/AMANDA-PLATELL-How-Harman-huge-harm-wome n.html#ixzz0UGiUZ7uH

It isn't really about Harriet Harman but quotes some of what was said in front of he Treasury Select Committe last week about women working in the City.

I do not like Harriet Harman's politics but this article completely misses the point that women still face massive discrimination in the City (and many other roles). Reading the article its as if discrimiation never happens.

ABetaDad Sun 18-Oct-09 08:20:29

The link is here

nighbynight Sun 18-Oct-09 09:03:35

I think that the Labour party's "equality" agenda across the board, not just feminism, is flawed, badly thought out and promotes inequality.

nighbynight Sun 18-Oct-09 09:04:16

(better make sure youve got your tin hat on before you quote Amanda Platell, though BD.)

Rindercella Sun 18-Oct-09 09:10:14

Really, the headline should be "How The Daily Mail has done huge harm to women" as that paper is intent on printing misogynistic articles, mainly written by women such as Platell.

nighbynight Sun 18-Oct-09 09:18:51

Amanda Platell's argument that people wont want to employ women any more, is roughly analogous to those employers who used to whine in 1996, that the minimum wage would break them, and then people would have no jobs at all, and they'd be sorry they insisted on the minimum wage.

I just think the whole problem has been tackled from teh wrong side. Bring house prices down, make life more affordable, and parents wouldnt be so pressured. Or share maternity leave between parents.

Prunerz Sun 18-Oct-09 09:21:38

Hang on
You're quoting Amanda Platell writing in the Mail about women.
Are you serious? Is it April 1st?
[headdesk]

ABetaDad Sun 18-Oct-09 09:22:15

I think the plain fact is that the City does not 'do' children or family or work life balance. If a man asked for paternity leave he might as well chuck his City career in the bin. He would certainly have his bonus slashed. Women fall foul of that rule too.

nighbynight Sun 18-Oct-09 09:24:33

But we shouldnt be making legislation based on the city of london, should we?

ABetaDad Sun 18-Oct-09 09:40:12

nightbynight - I agree about sharing parental leave. I think men should be forced to take 3 monhs off as a minimum so teh 'incentive' for firms to emply men rather than women will diminish in all business.

Fact is though although some women may choose to give up City careers to care for children that does not excuse the blatant discrimination in pay, terms and conditions, promotion prospects, recruitment and selection for redundancy that eventually terminate most women's City careers.

The fact that a few women do make it to the top in the City does not excuse the fact that 99% of the people at the top in the City are men. It is obvious why that happens.

ABetaDad Sun 18-Oct-09 11:15:52

Me and DW just talkng about this and we think that 12 months maternity leave is far too long but to blame the new legislation that allows extended maternity leave for the fact that women are not making it to the top is way off the mark. The legislation has only just come in and discriminiation has been going on for decades.

There needs to be a balance between right of business to plan and get work out of employees but there also has to be an absolute right for women to see what men are being paid and to be treated equally and for men to be allowed to share parental leave. This Times article is a bit lop sided but makes interesting points.

Perhaps a woman should not be allowed maternity leave until she has been working for an employer a year. Then here could be no criticism of woemen taking advantage of the system. However, the quid pro quo should be draconian enforcement of equality legislation. Bet business would not be to keen on that either.

smallwhitecat Sun 18-Oct-09 11:19:46

Message withdrawn

LissyGlitter Sun 18-Oct-09 11:26:49

But if you were not allowed maternity leave until you had been working somewhere for a year, what are you meant to do if you get pregnant by accident? AFAIK you are only entitled to the very bare minimum in that situation anyway. You also get very little if you have a temp or zero hours contract, thus meaning that an awful lot of low paid workers suffer.

Maternity leave needs to be parental leave. There needs to be a separate element for the pregnancy and recovering from birth bit, which obviously only the woman can so, then the rest should be shared between the couple. It is ridiculous that a woman is only allowed 10 days of work or she loses her maternity rights, yet the bloke can only have 2 weeks off, and that is only if he is lucky enough to have the right situation.

Most people I know are in low paid temp work, and so don't have any parental leave rights, which is just not on.

Also, again and again I encounter people assuming that, if a child is ill, it will be the mum who takes time off work to look after them. This is often because the only work the mother has been able to get is more flexible as an employer at a more "normal" job won't employ a mother, yet the father of the same children has no problem. This is just silly.

TheFoosa Sun 18-Oct-09 11:28:41

sorry, saw the name Amanda Platell and dismissed it immediatly, really dislike her

ADragonIs4LifeNotJustHalloween Sun 18-Oct-09 11:28:49

"It is ridiculous that a woman is only allowed 10 days of work or she loses her maternity rights, yet the bloke can only have 2 weeks off,"

Isn't 2 weeks 10 working days though?

LissyGlitter Sun 18-Oct-09 11:31:04

Yeah, but a woman is allowed 10 days IN work, ie the "keeping in touch" days before she loses her right to maternity leave. A man is allowed 10 days OUT of work, called paternity leave.

edam Sun 18-Oct-09 12:40:09

Amanda Platell is a bit weird, IMO. Heard her speak at a Women in Journalism do where she harangued the audience because when she got the sack, apparently female friends offered sympathy while men offered jobs.

And I think she's bitter about maternity leave because she has no kids - vague memories of her admitting this in writing.

Don't see that 12 months maternity leave is any more of a 'problem' for employers than six or nine - you just recruit cover. As a manager, I've done that and it isn't any more taxing than covering for staff who leave and much less than dealing with someone who needs long-term sickness absence.

Companies wouldn't survive if we weren't reproducing. And if you employ human beings, you have to deal with human foibles, like getting ill or having babies.

Dubh Sun 18-Oct-09 13:25:50

So basically Platell argues mothers should remove themselves from the workforce once they've had their first child so as to not tarnish the job prospects of women who aren't going to have children?!

Maybe they should be forced to stop work as soon as they come off the pill just in case.

In her defence, it's hard to understand the issues working mothers face until you've experienced it.

Totally agree with previous comments about shared parental leave. It's a crucial step.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now