Equal Opportunities Commission backtracks a bit


——————————————————-

09 February 2007

Back-to-work pressure DOES hit family life

The social revolution that encourages more women to go to work is putting intolerable strain on family life, the Government’s sex equality advisers admitted.

The warning, from the Equal Opportunities Commission, results from a poll that showed more than eight out of ten people think it is hard for parents to manage both work and raising children.

It also said that seven out of ten think it is going to get harder.

The findings follow years of pressure from ministers, urged on by the EOC, for mothers to leave young children in day care and return to work.

Strange how the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) published this poll, given that it largely contradicts their own ideology of demanding women enter the workforce, demanding men move aside to make way, and demanding mothers stick kids in daycare.

Well done EOC and fembots, try and rewire human nature and fulfill the socialist dreams of having everyone in the workforce and children in grotty daycare centres, and it fucks everything up.

The EOC chief, who lives with human rights activist and former Liberty pressure group chief Andrew Puddephatt, has no children of her own.

Typical. As well as being deranged and incredibly bitter, most feminists are childless and often lesbians too, yet they unashamedly dictate what’s best for other (possibly more normal) women and other people’s children.

Still, its women’s own fault for stupidly following the march of the fembots and believing that being stuck in a dreary office 40-hours a week is better than being at home and raising children.

There are a few women posting comments at The Daily Mail that women should be paid to stay at home raising children. WTF? Who’s going to pay them? The taxpayers? How fucking entitled can you get?

Women used to get paid to do that anyway…by their husbands. It may not have been in the form of a wage-packet, but they were given money from their husband for personal shopping and for buying the family groceries, and indirectly their husband would pay them in the form of covering the mortgage and household bills for them, not to mention providing for the children. This is the important thing women blithely forget in divorce cases; they insist they could have been earning a salary during all that time (out of their own choice usually) they were at home raising children, but whilst this is technically true, they forget that they didn’t need a salary; hubby paid for the mortgage bills, utility bills, clothes and food bills, etc.

(It’s funny the way the Mail refers to the EOC as standing for “sex equality” rather than sexual equality. Maybe that’s not a bad idea, a Sex Equality Commission, to ensure equal amounts of sex for everyone. Horny teenaged boys could get in touch and say “Hey, I’m still a virgin at 17 and this dude in my class has fucked, like, five girls. I demand some Sex Equality. Send round five dirty sluts for me to fuck to make things a bit more equal. Thanks.” Government subsidised prostitutes. Brilliant idea! And why not? The government spend taxpayers money on seeing to women’s needs for security (benefits for single mothers for a start.) Why not spend money for us men’s needs for shagging? Not a bad idea I think. I shall write to my local MP with this suggestion.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:40 PM
——————————————————-

At 9:00 PM, Davout said…

Look for the EOC to try to pull a “Sweden” and force working fathers to stay at home by making paternity leave mandatory, thus demonstrating that feminism is all about increasing women’s choices at the expense of reducing men’s choices.

——————————————————-

At 9:50 PM, Anonymous said…

There are a few women posting comments at The Daily Mail that women should be paid to stay at home raising children. WTF? Who’s going to pay them?

Duncan, how silly you are, thinking about how the economy would survive that, while the solution is simple and plain for all to see; men will work and women who stay at home will get payed. There.

——————————————————-

At 10:13 PM, Lisa said…

Wow, I thought Sweden made it mandatory to offer paternity leave. I didn’t realize men were required to take it. How unproductive and silly. I think men who want paternity leave should have access to time off without punishment. Requiring time be taken is another matter.

As to grotty daycare centers, that is right on. I had a corporate mama tell me my daughter would be at a disadvantage for me staying home with her. She wouldn’t develop the social skills the same as if she were interacting with other children. My daughter is 10 months old and has never been ill. Most of my friends with kids in daycare are constantly dealing with a virus or bacterial infection. Hard to develop social skills when your kid is too sick to function. My daughter is way ahead of the game in terms of focus with tasks, walking and understanding cause and effect in play. She gets constant interaction with me versus being plopped in some bouncy chair or crib for a day while daycare attendants split their time amongst a flock of children.

What angers me is it is acceptable for this corporate mama to tell me I’m harming my daughter by not putting her in daycare. If I state her choice of career over care of her child is harmful, I’m out of line. Many career women will say they are a better mother to their children because they are happy and fulfilled to be out of the home. They may only see their child for 1-2 hours of awake time a day, but that time is valuable b/c mom is happy and can have more positive interaction with the child since she isn’t resentful for having to care for the child all day. I ask this. Why have a child if 1-2 hours a day is all you can give and still be happy? Why not be a fabulous aunt or uncle and get your kid fix that way?

——————————————————-

At 10:27 PM, Anonymous said…

a sex equality government institute?
EB, normally you have good ideas but this time you obviously haven’t thought things through. As a government institute they are clearly not going to give young boys choices are they!? instead they are going to demand that these young boy have equal amounts of sex and the skank they send round will be a fat ass 40+ government employee femtard with baby rabies who wants to add the poor lads future earnings to her retirement pension. their is no way in gods earth anybody is sending one of those government skanks around to my house. think again!!!!!

——————————————————-

At 8:52 AM, Masculist Man said…

Great idea about subsidizing prostitutes. It’s about time the government catered to us for a change.

This is off-topic but it is important because it affects the movement and that is:

When Sue “broke a nail” why did a lot of you turn into “Captain save a ho”? If she was so out of it she should have gone to a feminist board considering she is one.

——————————————————-

At 1:09 AM, Cynicism is hip said…

As much as I like the sex equality provision, I think, logistically, it’s impossible. You recommend that slutty women cater to the needs of sexually frustrated men, but surely there will only be a few women willing to take up such promiscuity. Thus, a few women would be having tremendous amounts of sex, thus offsetting the frequency in which the entire population of women are having sex. The only way in which sex equality could work is if everybody were set up with a single partner and given specific times to have sex. Of course, I know you were joking, but true sex equality cannot exist

——————————————————-

At 7:27 AM, Panzer said…

So they cause the problem then complain about it? What the Shit? Sounds like these people need to get their heads and their asses wired together.

Panzer

——————————————————-

At 9:21 AM, Masculist Man said…

Anonymous 10:27 PM,you truly know how to piss on a good thing.

What they should do is give you the money to spend on the hooker if you know where to look,otherwise offer it as “community service” to lightweight female lawbreakers.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: