Of lower potential value?

First the official line:

In a poll for the EHRC, 36% of employers thought it reasonable to ask a women about plans to have children. Some 59% agreed that a woman should have to disclose during the recruitment process whether she is pregnant.

The commission said the poll of 1,106 male and female decision-makers showed worrying attitudes.

The EHRC said its study showed that many employers needed more support to better understand the basics of discrimination law and the rights of pregnant women and new mothers.

A nice comment by Llamas:

I’ll reiterate what I have said here before – in 35+ years of working as an engineer, I have known quite-a-few female engineers, some good, some bad, no different than other engineers are.

Of those women, perhaps two dozen in all, only two worked continuously at their careers. All the others left their work for extended periods to have children, and the majority never returned to full-time employment. And one of the two who stayed working – well, let’s just say that a husband and children were not part of her plans.

As it happens, I am working now with a woman I worked with in the early 90s, who left her career in her late twenties to have two children and returned after almost 20 years to full-time employment as an engineer. She maintained her skills, took some catch-up classes, and has successfully transitioned back into her career. But she’s 20 years behind. And she is the glaring exception – one out of 25.

So, based on my experience, an employer who employs a woman in her twenties or thirties stands a very-high chance that she will leave her job for an extended period in the near future, and it’s more-likely-than-not that she will never come back to work. This may not be an issue for cashiers at the supermarket or admins at the National Insurance offices, but this is no way to run any sort of business that involves extensive training and highly-developed skills.

This can only make women less-attractive as candidates for employment and will lead to reduced employment of women. The realities of nature will not be denied. This is not ‘antiquated’, it is realistic. I would love to see some statistics on the true behaviours of women in the workforce.

Only an effing idiot hides behind the flung dung of “women hating” in refusing to face facts. One does not have to hate a demographic to see it’s flawed logic – for example, I don’t hate Thomas Sowell in the least, nor do I hate the batshit crazy, gobby, Millennial female SJW Mosby in Baltimore I just detest her utter lack of logic and her brainwashing.

The issue of women’s pregnancies, plus the entire outlook of the feminazi version does make them a significant risk for any organization and of lower potential value, unless the male she’s compared to is a useless SJW himself, in which case he’s even worse.

[H/T Chuckles]

7 comments for “Of lower potential value?

  1. Mudplugger
    February 20, 2018 at 8:53 am

    Women are of no higher, nor lower, value than men.

    However, in the workplace, the value-equation is different and any recruiting employer must evaluate the total contribution that person may make to that workplace compared to a different candidate: it is commercially irresponsible of an employer to disregard the gender, and therefore long-term availability, of any candidate when making any appointment or promotion decision.

    We are schooled to manage by facts and the facts tell us that, over a working lifetime, the average female employee will be in work-attendance for considerably less time than the average male employee. To disregard those facts is a dereliction of management duty.

    Equal opportunity is good, but it must be balanced by equal contribution.

  2. john in cheshire
    February 20, 2018 at 9:43 am

    I think the problem here is that the EHRC exists. This make-work body is not needed, is a waste of taxpayers money and in a sane world it would be abolished, together with all the legislation that accompanies it, including all the fake-hate-laws.

    • Pcar
      February 20, 2018 at 10:29 pm

      +1 Agree

  3. February 20, 2018 at 12:58 pm

    Yes.

  4. February 20, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    The only solution to the loss of women in the workforce due to pregnancy is for them to hand their children over to the state or it’s paid agents. The only way it can work is for the state to be compelled to provide free 24/7 childcare (paid for by everyone else). In true Soviet style the state becomes the teacher, carer and mentor for your child, they cease to be yours.
    Which fits the modern trend to eschew parental obligations and the destruction of the typical family perfectly.

  5. February 20, 2018 at 2:23 pm

    The entire issue and its continuance is ridiculous. The problem is not women’s aspiration nor even malevolent feminism, it is the total lack of mature, intelligent adults in legislative and business positions. Most are too stupid to say ‘NO’, let alone understand what NO means.

  6. Pcar
    February 20, 2018 at 10:37 pm

    Dear ECHR [CC Gov’t],

    You are supposed to represent us.

    If we do not support your agenda, it shows worrying attitudes from you, not us.

    Change your attitude or, better, abolish yourself as your attitudes are unrepresentative of the populace.

    Regards,

    Pcar

Comments are closed.