Birth rates up. (1 Viewer)

[OS]

Does anyone notice the sexism in that statement? OS, have you considered that having children is a choice? You shouldn't be demanding more when you choose to have them.

Also men could endure labour. We don't feel pain as much as women, it is a side benefit of being male.

How can it be a choice with pressure put on women similar to the ''populate or perish!'' days??????? So we need all the support we can get!! And, no desire to sound sexist but women tend to bear pain a lot better than men - I mean some of us have terrible period pain every month and we struggle to work, study while men are in bed with a slight cold! I have all respect for men but we ladies do have a greater tolerance for pain for biological reasons - support me, girls!! (Sorry, guys, but no hard feelings.)

 

[neo o]

Hows bout "Slutty hotties".

*looks to Korea, HK and Vietnam.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Most studies on this matter show that women in general have a lower threshhold and lower pain tollerance than men. Anyone who's nursed a man through pain, in comparison with a woman, will realise this.
This is partially a cultural thing, where men have been told that it's wrong to express, show pain... it's not necessarily that good to let pain build up as men often do.

As for childbirth, there are studies which show that due to the hormonal shift that comes with pregnancy and breast feeding can act as a natural painkiller. (this was done by asking women who have chronic pain, then go through pregnancy) so it would seem the female body adapts in order to deal with having a baby.

 

[Xayma]

How can it be a choice with pressure put on women similar to the ''populate or perish!'' days??????? So we need all the support we can get!! And, no desire to sound sexist but women tend to bear pain a lot better than men - I mean some of us have terrible period pain every month and we struggle to work, study while men are in bed with a slight cold! I have all respect for men but we ladies do have a greater tolerance for pain for biological reasons - support me, girls!! (Sorry, guys, but no hard feelings.)

A stable rate would be 1.7 we could function on that. The government should support PARENTS of children and be pro family, however dont expect to get all these side benefits to it if you aren't currently getting them. It is good if they are given, just dont expect it.

You seem to be thinking "we must have tolerance for pregnancy" guess again. Males have the higher pain tolerance:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3185

Males are better at tolerating pain than females because of a key difference in how the sexes transmit pain messages, researchers have found.

A protein called GIRK2 plays a major role in pain sensation and drug sensitivity in males, but is not as important in females. Removing GIRK2 means the sexes become equal in their ability to withstand pain, experiments on mice showed. Taking account of this difference could in the future lead to far more effective painkillers for women.

Previous studies show that men have higher pain thresholds than women. This is despite conventional wisdom suggesting the opposite, since women endure intense pain during childbirth
.
.
.

Of course this varies from individual to individual along with other activities of the brain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3861

However, statistically females have a lower pain threshold. Also other statistical differences in brain structure etc is why females AS A GROUP should not expect to get 50% of managerial positions etc, if a female is great for the position promote her but I dont see why a MINIMUM (where is the minimum for males?) is necessary when they might not be the best candidate for the job. Sex should not be looked at, whether male or female, pick the best person for the job.

 

[Korn]

A stable rate would be 1.7 we could function on that. The government should support PARENTS of children and be pro family, however dont expect to get all these side benefits to it if you aren't currently getting them. It is good if they are given, just dont expect it.

You seem to be thinking "we must have tolerance for pregnancy" guess again. Males have the higher pain tolerance:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3185

Of course this varies from individual to individual along with other activities of the brain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3861

However, statistically females have a lower pain threshold. Also other statistical differences in brain structure etc is why females AS A GROUP should not expect to get 50% of managerial positions etc, if a female is great for the position promote her but I dont see why a MINIMUM (where is the minimum for males?) is necessary when they might not be the best candidate for the job. Sex should not be looked at, whether male or female, pick the best person for the job.

Totally agree, having a mandate on the minimum # of women in management is not only sexist but foolish from a management and business view, why should one be promoted based on their gender, race or any other factor that has no bearing on actual capability to do the job

 

[OS]

Totally agree, having a mandate on the minimum # of women in management is not only sexist but foolish from a management and business view, why should one be promoted based on their gender, race or any other factor that has no bearing on actual capability to do the job

Yeah, I, even as an advocate for women's rights, agree - I mean, let women have a fair chance of employment but may the best candidate win - male or female. This is only singling women out as a ''special'' group, anyway, not as equals to men.

 

[firehose]

There's a thing called the 'glass ceiling' and while the ceiling is losing its influence its still showing its presence. While 55 percent of university students are women, only 10 percent of top-level administrative jobs are held by women. And this won't change tomorrow.

I reckon the best model for keeping birth rates at a optimum rate and keeping women in the workforce is what they're doing in Scandinavia, with lots of childcare support and the like. In Sweden 82% of women with 2+ children work, compared to only about 40% here.

 

[OS]

There's a thing called the 'glass ceiling' and while the ceiling is losing its influence its still showing its presence. While 55 percent of university students are women, only 10 percent of top-level administrative jobs are held by women. And this won't change tomorrow.

I reckon the best model for keeping birth rates at a optimum rate and keeping women in the workforce is what they're doing in Scandinavia, with lots of childcare support and the like. In Sweden 82% of women with 2+ children work, compared to only about 40% here.

Yeah, if women with kids are to work, they can't be in to places at once, so if they are to have both commitments, quality childcare is the most feasible option to be focussed on.

 

[Xayma]

There's a thing called the 'glass ceiling' and while the ceiling is losing its influence its still showing its presence. While 55 percent of university students are women, only 10 percent of top-level administrative jobs are held by women. And this won't change tomorrow.

I reckon the best model for keeping birth rates at a optimum rate and keeping women in the workforce is what they're doing in Scandinavia, with lots of childcare support and the like. In Sweden 82% of women with 2+ children work, compared to only about 40% here.

Have you considered the experience needed to be in the top level administrative jobs would go back into the time when women were discriminated? It will most likely even out in future at a stable number which is higher than 10%.

Scandanavia's economies are a joke. While teachers getting paid $50 000US a year may look good, consider a pizza costs >$30 US to get delivered. It's all relative