Suicide-a feminist issue?

[whenwomenruletheworld]

Tragically high male suicide rates have I think wrongly painted this as a men's issue. Aren't all the suicides men and women tragedies? And if the "man up/grow a pair" culture is in part responsible for men killing themselves in such numbers, when will society see feminism as the main opponent to the patriarchal bullshit which creates these gender stereotypes as the main hope for both men and women of dismantling them? It is disheartening to hear men talk disparagingly about feminism when my God the alternatives PUA nonsense MRA, UKIP, are so totally discredited. As someone posted on here when will there be a men's rights movement which embraces feminism as it's sister movement and which focuses on things which damage everyone?

60% of all private sector employees are employed by SMEs, slugs

And a lot of those that enhance pay do so for 3-6 months, not up to 12 months, so unless the mother stops ML quite early, all the 'enhanced period' is likely to be used up by her.

Throughout history, unexpsoc, how many women do you think died in childbirth vs men in war?

I don't know. What is the answer?

And as women are making inroads all the time, on their own campaigning, into military roles, other than supporting them in these campaign, what is the role for your movement there?

The trouble is (IMO at least) that since "men" (which feminists define to mean "men as a class" whatever exactly that might mean), are the ones who "grant" women equal rights.

Sorry, as a complete aside and not trying to derail, but I have always been uncomfortable with the term "rights" anyway. This sounds as if it is something that can't be taken away from you and you have from birth. Actually, they are all given to us by society - and generally, on the back of somebody "winning" it for us. If someone has to "win" it for us, is it really a right? Or is it a gift that can be taken away again? If it is only a gift, is it worth having?

Probably made a right meal of that explanation.

A random google says around 1 in 5 in and around the 1500s. Wars, of course, tend to be better reported, but I would be very surprised if, pre-20th century, men dying in wars were not dwarfed by women dying in childbirth.

With respect to the world wars, Wikipedia says:

Civilians killed totalled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 21 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

Given the number of civilian deaths and the assumption that, whilst that would have included some non-fighting men, more than 50% would be female, I don't think the WWs on their own redress the balance.

In any event, you didn't reply re what your campaign is doing other
than supporting women who want additional military roles?

unexpsoc, could you indicate for what period your employer provided enhanced maternity pay?

And a lot of those that enhance pay do so for 3-6 months, not up to 12 months, so unless the mother stops ML quite early, all the 'enhanced period' is likely to be used up by her.

So in our case, my wife gets I think 100% for 4 weeks, then 90% for 6 weeks, then SMP (give or take).

With my company, it is full pay for 6 months, then 75% for 3 months then SMP.

In effect, the financial implications of this have meant my wife is forced to stay at home. The way the law has been written does mean it will be different for every couple.

It's a mealy-mouthed "we have done something" law and NOT what people understand it to be at all. There were good intentions and they have been watered down for the benefits of businesses ahead of the rights of individuals.

Compare it to our Scandinavian cousins and they have a very different legal basis and it works fine for them.

"the likelihood of those men doing that is less."

Sorry, I don't follow this?

In essence, slugs, I agree with you that both parties would be equally disadvantged in the workplace by parenthood. But if companies are voluntarily offering enhancements, I cannot agree (from a practical rather than ideological standpoint) that legislation that might lead to those being withdrawn i.e. the lowest common denominator would be good for women.

should be, not would be!

unexpsoc, if you had taken over the leave from week 10, would your company have paid you full pay from week 10 to week 26, then 75% for week 26 to 39?

In any event, you didn't reply re what your campaign is doing other
than supporting women who want additional military roles?

In terms of the maths - I am not sure but will put together a quick calculation later when I have a moment.

I am not running a campaign yet. I am not sure I understand what I am meant to be doing? By the way - I think that women who want additional military roles SHOULD be supported. I absolutely think those jobs should be opened up to them. I have worked with very many female soldiers who were absolutely brilliant.

if you had taken over the leave from week 10, would your company have paid you full pay from week 10 to week 26, then 75% for week 26 to 39?

That is what I wanted, but they told me to Foxtrot Oscar. Everyone agreed with me it was the right thing to do, but it was also too expensive, and until other companies start doing it, why should we etc.?

So there you have it, the government have left combatting discrimination and doing the right thing to Market Forces. Well, at least they are sticking to their ideals.

This could have been such a brilliant piece of legislation.

unexpsoc, that's a shame, especially as your wife was clearly ready to go back after 10 weeks.

There have been people protesting that they can't both get enhanced pay, which of course would increase the net cost to employers.

"I am not running a campaign yet. I am not sure I understand what I am meant to be doing? "

By this, I meant what would the 'men's equality movement' that you are trying to establish actually do differently on this point?

"In terms of the maths - I am not sure but will put together a quick calculation later when I have a moment. "

Please don't bother on my account; my goal was to make the point that women's deaths in childbirths (along with temporary and permanent physical effects and after effects) are often forgotten by those talking about men dying in battle.

slugs, as I said above, if men start to enquire about SPL policies when they are interviewing (as I did about ML policies), then companies may look to improve them. I don't think the 'get out clause' is here or there on that, TBH.

Please don't bother on my account; my goal was to make the point that women's deaths in childbirths (along with temporary and permanent physical effects and after effects) are often forgotten by those talking about men dying in battle.

Oh god, no not at all, but are they really analogous (spelling?)? For example - either a man or a woman COULD die in a battle. But it is quite hard for a man to die from childbirth. Not that it stopped my wife from trying the second time around.

I am not sure it is a fair / relevant comparison for that reason.

unexpsoc, that's a shame, especially as your wife was clearly ready to go back after 10 weeks.

For god's sake take this down before she sees it.

The point was that our conversation about when that would happen was ended as quickly as it began once I had looked into it.

Sorry that the deaths of millions of women are irrelevant. And that your wife nearly died in childbirth.

I cannot agree (from a practical rather than ideological standpoint) that legislation that might lead to those being withdrawn i.e. the lowest common denominator would be good for women.

Sorry, missed this, but I can't imagine ANY company publicly stating "hey everyone we have cut our company maternity pay offer now because men can get it too". I do not believe that would have been the outcome of it. Can you imagine the press they would get? Therefore I don't think that IS a practical perspective.

Sorry that the deaths of millions of women are irrelevant. And that your wife nearly died in childbirth.

I meant that my wife nearly made me a man who died in childbirth the second time around. I missed a smilie.

The deaths of that many women are NOT irrelevant. But then I have never argued that they were. I can't comment for other people who have argued that. What I said is they are not analogous.

I agree WomanInTheWall.

For millennia men have forced women to get pregnant (they still do), forced women to carry babies to term whether wanted or not (they still do) and in doing so have killed millions of women unnecessarily.

But somehow this fact isn't as important as the very unlikely (and currently illegal) prospect of men being forced to go to war and be killed.

But somehow this fact isn't as important as the very unlikely (and currently illegal) prospect of men being forced to go to war and be killed.

Has somebody suggested this here, on this thread slug?