maternity leave, militant nazifems, threats of legal actions, four-day working weeks, possible job shares, excess time spent "organising melb. cup parties and the like, piccies of kids and pets, cakes and long tea breaks, unreliable, avaricious ..........

You are ridiculous!

Back in the nineties I employed 4-6 females, mostly mature age. they were competent and conscientious. The ones not of mature age yes I had three different ones over about 10 years as they each in turn left to be married. But then again, juniors are on lower wages.

You are generalising recklessly based on no real experience I bet!

I was going to comment, but I think it better to leave that to our female members who will no doubt turn up soon on mass and rip you apart limb by limb. ;D

darwin - i'ld never thought of "left to be married", thanks.

skippy - a bit of a softcock, are we there?    ;)

I would love not to work and be fully supported by a man. It takes less than two hours to clean a house per day, everyday... then after that... my time would be my own to do with as I please, at the man's expense.

If he could not afford my lifestyle, I would put him down for it, after all, Mr Jones across the street can afford what ever for his Mrs Jones, so why can't you? What's wrong with you? Why don't you just work harder? Don't you care about your kids? Don't you care about me? All our friends are doing better than you. Do you want our friends thinking you are a tight arse who cruelly denies his wife and children?

The more he works, the more he earns, the less time he has to spend his earnings and the more time and money I have to myself. Sweet!

When he gets home, he can dish out the punishments to the kiddies before putting them to bed. On the weekend, he can attend to his traditional role of keeping the outside maintained and dare he think he can rest? No! He doesn't spend enough time with the kids and I have a hairdressing appointment followed up with a tennis lesson with Sven.

I agree with you Sprint... why would a woman work, when she can be pampered by a husband.  8-)

I think I miss the olden days now.

I was actually talking about this not long ago. "Why would anyone want to employ a woman when there's maternity leave?" but that was the only issue we discussed. The other issues Sprint mentioned could be applied to men as well.

Hlysnan wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:

I was actually talking about this not long ago. "Why would anyone want to employ a woman when there's maternity leave?" but that was the only issue we discussed. The other issues Sprint mentioned could be applied to men as well.

Well there ya go... yet another reason to kick married women out of the work place... they cost too much in lost time and maternity pay.

Much better for men to work their arses off to pamper the woman. Women deserve to do what they want at their husbands expense.

Leave paid work to the men and single women I say.

Sappho wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:

I would love not to work and be fully supported by a man. It takes less than two hours to clean a house per day, everyday... then after that... my time would be my own to do with as I please, at the man's expense. If he could not afford my lifestyle, I would put him down for it, after all, Mr Jones across the street can afford what ever for his Mrs Jones, so why can't you? What's wrong with you? Why don't you just work harder? Don't you care about your kids? Don't you care about me? All our friends are doing better than you. Do you want our friends thinking you are a tight arse who cruelly denies his wife and children? The more he works, the more he earns, the less time he has to spend his earnings and the more time and money I have to myself. Sweet! When he gets home, he can dish out the punishments to the kiddies before putting them to bed. On the weekend, he can attend to his traditional role of keeping the outside maintained and dare he think he can rest? No! He doesn't spend enough time with the kids and I have a hairdressing appointment followed up with a tennis lesson with Sven. I agree with you Sprint... why would a woman work, when she can be pampered by a husband.  8-)

Spoken like a real bloke.

;D

Army chiefs face the nightmare prospect of having to consider their soldiers' childcare problems before giving them orders.
The devastating blow follows a successful sex discrimination claim brought by a single mother.
Tilern DeBique, 28, says she was forced to leave the Army because she was expected to be available for duty around the clock.
She was formally disciplined when she failed to appear on parade because she had to look after her daughter.

She was told the Army was a 'war-fighting machine' and 'unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements'. (How rude is THAT?!?)

Now she is in line for a payout of at least £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265446/Single-mother-soldier-wins-discrimination-case-Army-failed-provide-adequate-childcare.html#ixzz0l2I0hS7N

She couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements so thats her fault. Military personnel don't get poor pay so she could have definitely arranged for someone to look after her child. I don't see how she can use a sex discrimation case as precedent because a father can be caught out like this as well.

Well, thank heavens it's not like that in Australia. One of my best friends is a mother of two very young children and the army had no problem deploying her to Afghanistan.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 5:15pm:

Well, thank heavens it's not like that in Australia. One of my best friends is a mother of two very young children and the army had no problem deploying her to Afghanistan.

She probably did the right thing and sorted out her childcare issues, unlike the one in the article.

Hlysnan wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 5:15pm: Well, thank heavens it's not like that in Australia. One of my best friends is a mother of two very young children and the army had no problem deploying her to Afghanistan. She probably did the right thing and sorted out her childcare issues, unlike the one in the article.

She did. Her husband had to take long service leave to look after the kids. Doesn't make it any easier for her though.

Lucky him?

I doubt he thinks so.

Quote:

I would love not to work and be fully supported by a man. It takes less than two hours to clean a house per day, everyday... then after that... my time would be my own to do with as I please, at the man's expense. If he could not afford my lifestyle, I would put him down for it, after all, Mr Jones across the street can afford what ever for his Mrs Jones, so why can't you? What's wrong with you? Why don't you just work harder? Don't you care about your kids? Don't you care about me? All our friends are doing better than you. Do you want our friends thinking you are a tight arse who cruelly denies his wife and children? The more he works, the more he earns, the less time he has to spend his earnings and the more time and money I have to myself. Sweet! When he gets home, he can dish out the punishments to the kiddies before putting them to bed. On the weekend, he can attend to his traditional role of keeping the outside maintained and dare he think he can rest? No! He doesn't spend enough time with the kids and I have a hairdressing appointment followed up with a tennis lesson with Sven. I agree with you Sprint... why

If only that were so without the input of '(il) legal" intervention. Then the bloke would just provide a good dose of "shut thu fkcu up" and that would be the end of it.
If you want more money, then go earn it for yourself instead of being a leeching parasite.
Oh for the old days of "real" men" and "real" women.
We've been led totally astray..Liana.

Any woman knows that they won't be able to parade themselves above their girlmates by working for two hours a day. They need to leech, and leech hard. This is the lifelong objective. There is a certain depth amidst the pathetic shallowness there.
Somebody, someday, may be bothered trying to rediscover what the caveman already learned so many eaons ago. Who could really be bothered bringing up the obvious?i

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 5:15pm:

Well, thank heavens it's not like that in Australia. One of my best friends is a mother of two very young children and the army had no problem deploying her to Afghanistan.

She will come home with 80 odd grand though, that might help dry her tears?

A gf of mine in the army says that although the pay and perks can be good, she can't wait to get out as the heirachy regarding officers is totally anal, really really anal!

She has an 8yr old and HAS to go bush sometimes, babysitting is ok, her mum dotes on the child, but she hates hates hates being FORCED to share sleeping arrangements with guys that fart, jack off and snore in their sleep! and always trying to catch a sneaky perv when she has to change. Sounds funny but she says after awhile it really gets to you.


The days of seperate toilets and sleeping arrangements have gone and there is no privacy for women when training at kapooka or going bush.


Some women prolly are ok with it, but she cringes.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 10:41am:

maternity leave, militant nazifems, threats of legal actions, four-day working weeks, possible job shares, excess time spent "organising melb. cup parties and the like, piccies of kids and pets, cakes and long tea breaks, unreliable, avaricious ..........

Darwin wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 2:13pm:

You are ridiculous! Back in the nineties I employed 4-6 females, mostly mature age. they were competent and conscientious. The ones not of mature age yes I had three different ones over about 10 years as they each in turn left to be married. But then again, juniors are on lower wages. You are generalising recklessly based on no real experience I bet!

These 2 consecutive posts alone tell a very interesting story.