Women in/out the workplace


17 May 2007

We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every damn time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to fuck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:38 PM


At 7:40 PM, Reality2007 said…

BINGO!! I talk about this all the time on various message boards. It’s as if in this typical screwy female fashion women are effectively vanishing from the workplace. In my profession I have to call female ‘professionals’ all the time.. and on any given day, any given time of day- they’re not there!

But I think we’re looking at this all wrong.. wouldn’t you gladly pay a percentage of your check (or take a reduction in pay) to insure that you never have to work with women? I would- and now women just seem to be AWOL everywhere from the workplace for whatever grab bag reason all of the time.

I say, “YAAAAY!” It’s a victory!!!!
Now we don’t have to put with their asses anymore!!!


At 9:39 PM, Reality2007 said…

Please allow me to expound just a little further(I was too overcome with joy the first time). Look, we all know that no matter WHAT women do, one think you can always count on this it will be wrought with FRAUD. This issue concerning women and employment is of course no exception- if I had a nickel for every woman (I live in the U.S.) I tried to contact a woman at a place of business and heard “She’s not in today,” I would be rich indeed. Or every female ‘business owner’ that I found out later who’s business hasn’t done any actual business since God knows when or every ‘professional woman’ with some title that come to find out she hasn’t actually worked in years, I would also be rich.

You see, it has now become ‘fashionable’ (in the bizarre world of women) to not work anymore- or at least full time. Leave it to women to actually make the most important life decisions imaginable based on ‘fashion’- how devoid of a soul would you have be? (Answer: Female)

Yes, so now women have also gotten what they finally wanted- to have a job and not actually be there- yes, as bizarre and psycho and wrong as that is- I guess it’s like marrying someone and never actually living with them or ever seeing them(that’s probably what we can expect next- if the guy’s loaded, of course)and then even many of them collecting a check because they are on a salary. Yes, as a man you can pout and say, “It’s not fair!” and be jealous and all that, but how you could really ever be jealous of a woman for anything? It would mean you would actually have to a woman! And that would be Hell on Earth to be born that insane and mentally incapacitated.

So in the end all that matters is that for whatever reason- even as screwed up as it all is- THEY’RE GONE!!! What difference does it make how? It’s like we as men have accomplished what we’ve been trying to do for 20 years!! “Uh, yea, Sally ‘works’ here, wink, wink, uh, uh- I’ll tell her you called.” (When she stops by the office sometime 3 months from now).


At 11:47 PM, mfsob said…

Yeah, or they “work” in these pink collar jobs that are soooooooooooooooooooooo fricking vital to the survival of the species, like, ummmm …

– Social work (telling other women that they were all abused by their fathers);
– Counseling (telling other women that Yes, it IS all the man’s fault);
– Social services (handing out welfare to other women).

Yeah … vital *laughs*


At 6:23 AM, paul parmenter said…

After many years of observation, I have come to the only conclusion that fits the facts: that at bottom, there are vast swathes of women who simply do not want to work.

It appears to be against all their instincts and desires. Work is somehow profoundly degrading, something below women’s natural place in the world order. These women will work out of necessity, out of a wish to get something they desire, out of boredom, or out of sheer guilt that they are not contributing when they should be; but it always seems to be done begrudgingly, with a sense of injustice, as if they are being forced into something distasteful and simply “wrong”. A bit like forcing a dog to eat vegetables. OK, they will do it if there is no other choice, but it should not really be happening at all, should it? And hopefully it will stop soon, or some sucker will rescue them from the unpleasantness of it all.

Then of course you have to categorise “work” because that little word covers a multitude of meanings. Apparently to a woman, sitting in an air-conditioned office, filing your nails and reading mags while yapping to other women doing pretty much the same, can constitute “work”. So can putting a pile of clothes into a washing machine, pressing a button and then watching TV for half an hour with a cup of coffee.

It also seems to be another aspect of the female psyche to hype up the mundane and the easy stuff they do into some kind of gargantuan, heroic accomplishment. Housework is the prime example. I know what housework is, I have done tons of it over the years. All of it, from cleaning and cooking to ironing my own shirts and darning my own socks. And I can tell you from a position of knowledge that it is easy and undemanding. It is just a repetitive cycle of unskilled chores, that’s all. Any idiot can do it, and it does not take hours every day. Machines do the hard bits of it. Yet women continually insist that housework is every bit as hard and demanding as paid work, and claim it takes 100 hours a week, or some such nonsense. It’s all piffle.

I know there are women who do a decent day’s work, but they are in a minority. And even those women who work full time at a real job, still seem to display the same kind of attitude; the sense that they really should not have to be doing this, and would rather be somewhere else.

We have several highly intelligent and capable women where I work, who have the ability to get to the top of the profession. But most do not make it because they are so heavily into every type of excuse not to be in the workplace. Part-time, flexi-hours that mean you can’t rely on them to be there when somebody else wants them – or when a tough decision has to be taken – maternity leave, career breaks, sick leave at any excuse, endless doctor’s appointments and always in working hours, extended lunch and coffee breaks, rolling in late and skiving off early, the list is endless. Men just can’t get away with it, and don’t even try. But there is always an excuse for women.

This of course also means that these women just cannot be promoted or given any exceptional pay rise; they are simply not earning it. But that doesn’t stop them joining the chorus of complaint that they are being discriminated against when they get passed over.

Female priorities definitely do not lie in the workplace. Which is why, given the Government’s strange desire to get more women into it, they feel obliged to keep changing the workplace so it becomes closer and closer to the type of place where women do want to be, i.e. a place where there is as little real work as possible. Hence the capitulation to women’s demands to substitute work by domestic-oriented activities of the kind described here, all of which have one thing in common: they do not constitute anything that is any help whatsoever to people who are actually trying to run a real business.


At 9:14 AM, Hmh said…

Actually I’ve got to throw some real-world pragmatism in here. This kind of stuff seems to be true for the corporate high fliers, nobody else. If they’re cleaners, they turn up or they get sacked. Kitchen staff, maintenance etc etc… And if they’re self employed then that’s another story entirely.


At 10:49 AM, Anonymous said…

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

That hits the nail right on the head. You should write a book Duncan.

Two of my former school mates marry. One marries right now ( I am hearing the church bells – no kidding).
The other marries somewhere else.

Of course I did not warn them, I would give a bad impression of myself.
But imagine: yesterday I talked to the boyfriend of one of my former school mates. He said that in his former class the first are divorced now and he is 30 years old.

How many will be divorced in 7 years of those who marry now?


At 12:13 PM, Anonymous said…

From “Why Men Earn More

Special protection for any group almost always leads to discrimination against that group.


Because special protection costs employers MONEY, FORCES them to hire additional employees to administer the special protection, and makes OTHER employees feel like siblings feel when dad is giving special attention to one favorite child.

Each time we require companies to hire women and THEN require the to PROTECT women more than men, we tempt companies to develop a defense against legalized self-destructiveness. The most likely defense is “corporate passive-aggressive discrimination”: to say the believe in equality for women even as the discriminate against women.

Their message to us is, “When you stop forcing us to discriminate in favor of women, we’ll stop discriminating against women”.

Any man who wants to expose such fallacies in women MERELY need to get the book by Warren Farrell.

It may seem a little pro-female, but he does LOGICALLY expose the game for what it is.

Plus it has those LITTLE things women hate…logic, facts, research and statistics.



At 4:03 PM, Anonymous said…


The Us nasty men aren’t complimenting women enough, it seems thread is mail-in comments only.


At 5:36 AM, phoenix said…

I think they’re only there to gossip with each other and make every man around them miserable. Women also value appearances more than substance, although they only judge men and not other women on this standard. If a woman is gossiping for hours that’s perfectly okay, as long as all the women claim they are working hard.

If a man spends even a few minutes relaxing, a woman will immediately get on his case, even if she is lower in rank than him. All women feel they have a right to control men.

As I wrote earlier, the appearance to women is more important than substance. They do not care about total result, if a man (and he usually is) is 10 times as productive in one hour than a woman is in 10 hours, and he simply works that one hour and then slacks off the other 9, she will immediately have a problem with that. To a woman, complaining that you have too much work while barely getting anything done all day, as long as your complaining is constant, and the same slow steady pace is being achieved (not hard if the pace only calls for very low productivity per hour), is the same thing as actually being productive.

I am doing my best to ensure I do not have to work with women in the future. I may have to deal with them outside of the workplace, but as long as it’s not actually in the workplace I might maintain my sanity.


At 7:36 AM, Masculist Man said…

Yes, as a man you can pout and say, “It’s not fair!” and be jealous and all that, but how you could really ever be jealous of a woman for anything? It would mean you would actually have to a woman! And that would be Hell on Earth to be born that insane and mentally incapacitated.

No,it’s not about being a woman (which,thank god I’m not) it’s about equal rights. I do understand your position and yes it is hazardous in the office these days but they are still getting paid the same as the male employees who actually have to be there and do actual work and it’s not fair to those male employees who do the actual work. Now it would be more fair to pay the male employees more because they show up at work and do their work.


%d bloggers like this: