Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recession 'good For Women'


Recommended Posts

Apparently from an interview for the Politics Show

Recession 'good for women'

Women should use the "opportunity" of the recession to prove their worth in the workplace, Cherie Blair has said.

The human rights lawyer and wife of former PM Tony Blair said crisis-hit businesses are more likely to "take a chance" on recruiting a female worker.

"This is an opportunity for women, to show how much they can contribute and be part of the solution and not the problem," she said.

http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/national/49...r+women%27.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently from an interview for the Politics Show

http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/national/49...r+women%27.aspx

A desperate society requires a desperate solution - men selling their wifes into sex-slavery

Been very popular in some parts of Europe in the last 15 years

Cherry must be undergoing similar training to make that statement

Once we run out of oil that will be the only export

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt this means legislation for companies to hire at least 90% women just for the sake of fair employment rights is just around the corner.

I hate this women, her evil husband is the problem by believing that house prices can rise forever and people earning 20k a year can afford 200k for a average house.

The nicest thing i could wish the her and Tony is a slow painful death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be a bit pissed off if I had gone along with the whole feminist/post-feminist project. The bankers have just used you all to increase the scale of the usury - now they often include two salaries instead of one when calculating how much debt to put your family in. Great news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The human rights lawyer and wife of former PM Tony Blair said crisis-hit businesses are more likely to "take a chance" on recruiting a female worker.

Is this because there is a shortage of male workers?

No.

Is this because women are cheaper to employ?

In theory, no, although pay inequalities do still persist.

I do hope Cherie is not advocating that women accept lower pay for the same work and conditions, but logically, there seems no other foundation for her statement.

Why, historically, have employers chosen women over men as employees?

(a) They could get away with paying them less.

(B) It was the sort of work men might turn their noses up at (e.g. cleaning lady).

I do hope ultra rich Cherie is not advocating the exploitation of her less affluent sisters by big business, although it certainly sounds like it.

But of course, that can't be the case. It would be hypocritical in the extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently the Guardian has been running comment articles claiming our financial problems are due to "testosterone" and that "reform" is required. Perhaps she thinks someone will actually take this seriously.

In which case "positive discrimination" would definitely be the lesser of two evils.

I happen to be quite attached to my two evils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The human rights lawyer and wife of former PM Tony Blair said crisis-hit businesses are more likely to "take a chance" on recruiting a female worker.

What an extraordinary statement.

1) The last thing crisis-hit businesses are likely to do is "take a chance"; they will play safe and batten down the hatches.

2) So hiring a female worker (or a "woman") is taking a chance???? This from an equality lawyer. I have hired several women, I am glad that Cherie has pointed out that this is risky behaviour so will stop doing it and only hire men from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The human rights lawyer and wife of former PM Tony Blair said crisis-hit businesses are more likely to "take a chance" on recruiting a female worker.

What an extraordinary statement.

1) The last thing crisis-hit businesses are likely to do is "take a chance"; they will play safe and batten down the hatches.

2) So hiring a female worker (or a "woman") is taking a chance???? This from an equality lawyer. I have hired several women, I am glad that Cherie has pointed out that this is risky behaviour so will stop doing it and only hire men from now on.

Wasn't it Alan Sugar who was on record as saying something along the lines of "You would have to be mad to hire a women of child bearing age"?

Unless the laws are going to be eased to make employing females more attractive, I don't see why any company would take additional risk at the moment :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KingCharles1st

I'm sure many women will benefit from the recession as they file for divorce on the grounds of "diminished spousal earnings," get the house kids and everything else they want, then go and get a new guy as and when they please on their terms. it's sort of like an older version of a 16 year old getting pregnant so they can get a flat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it Alan Sugar who was on record as saying something along the lines of "You would have to be mad to hire a women of child bearing age"?

Unless the laws are going to be eased to make employing females more attractive, I don't see why any company would take additional risk at the moment :blink:

Indeed he did, and he's bang on. These new equality laws mean practically any other candidate will get the job rather than a woman who may have children. I would be mightily pissed off about NuLab if I were a mid-20s woman looking for the next career step because suddenly it's become a lot harder. Throw in a recession and it becomes near-impossible. Whatever big mouth may spout.

http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/t...pportunity-law/

Sir Alan said: “If I had a woman sitting there who said ‘I have two kids, nine months and two years old and I live in Clapham [south London]‘ and we are in Brentwood, by law I am not allowed to say to her ‘hold on love, do you think you are going to be able to cope in this job, you have to get the kids sorted?’

“Would you prefer me to say ‘thank you goodbye’ and then chuck the CV in the bin? Wouldn’t you prefer me to say ‘hang on, if I did give you this job how would you cope?’.

“Then she would have a chance to explain if she has a solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be a bit pissed off if I had gone along with the whole feminist/post-feminist project. The bankers have just used you all to increase the scale of the usury - now they often include two salaries instead of one when calculating how much debt to put your family in. Great news.

+1 and you all walked into it with your eyes open. Just to get a bigger kitchen/better car than the Joneses next door who only have one earner in the family.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this because women are cheaper to employ?

In theory, no, although pay inequalities do still persist.

Bzzt. "Other things being equal", those inequalities not only disappear, they reverse.

Tall men get paid more than short men. Men are taller than women. The average woman is actually paid more than the average man of her height (i.e. a shortie). And that's before you normalise for the usual (biological/family) causes - if you dare do any such thing - that may tend to affect the costs of employing women quite separately from what they're paid.

Yes, there's evidence of discrimination, but it's very different from what the PC agenda would have you believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this because there is a shortage of male workers?

No.

Is this because women are cheaper to employ?

In theory, no, although pay inequalities do still persist.

Some but its not as bad as it is made out, figures like average are always used, which does not take into account part time is more common amongst women, women take career breaks to have children and more often than not take odd days off to look after them.

There are plenty of women who advocate that they should get paid the same as men for unequal work, which is unfair the other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it Alan Sugar who was on record as saying something along the lines of "You would have to be mad to hire a women of child bearing age"?

Unless the laws are going to be eased to make employing females more attractive, I don't see why any company would take additional risk at the moment :blink:

My last work place employed 2 juniors , they were under my wing supposedly, they got pregnant within 2 months of starting, and then took ALOT of time off , and didn't return for the rest of the pregnancy and even after that didn't return or keep any reliable hours.

They still got paid normally as the bosses were scared of being sued.....I used to sit near the payroll office and you could hear the seething anger boil over when the pay slips were printed out.

Guess who got tasked with picking up the slack? , I did and I wasn't paid any extra for it, granted it was easy stuff since they were juniors but hey I was still doing the work of 3 people.

The debacle is still going on in that she is still 'employed ' by the company and paid by the company and refuses to attend any closure or progress or return meetings, and in the meantime I got pushed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be a bit pissed off if I had gone along with the whole feminist/post-feminist project. The bankers have just used you all to increase the scale of the usury - now they often include two salaries instead of one when calculating how much debt to put your family in. Great news.

I agree on the issue that now it is expected both parents work and somehow the children fend for themselves or they get a nanny. this is a huge step back from our parents generation.

But as someone who has never had debt it seems strange to understand it as something someone else is planning for me. i could not care what planning some banker is doing, i will do what i want and think is right. debt is presented as something that has just happened to people, like they had no choice, like the bankers somehow forced them into it. the truth is it was just greed and simple mindedness that lead to people being in debt - now they need to pay - perhaps with prison sentences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shutup, shutup! Stop giving SWMBO new reasons to want to sprog. She doesn't need them! :rolleyes:

+1 Most women including my wife see not working as the Nirvana not a career which is a job without overtime

Edit: She is very hard working but took about 8 years out to look after the kids properly when they were younger, Always seemed to me a good gig the motherhood thing with a hard working hubby

Bet you are not showing this post to SWMBO ;)

Edited by Greg Bowman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.