Godfrey Bloom was given a seat on the European Parliament's women's rights committee on Tuesday. But he told the media: "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."
Mr Bloom, an investment fund manager from York, told journalists he wanted to deal with women's issues because: "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough". "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights," he added.
(via Found)
What's he basically arguing, Ben, is that no women should be employed. Any woman old enough to work is old enough to have a child --- and any woman too old to have a child is probably too old to get a job, what with not having any experience because employers were too scared that she might get preggers.
But then it's a man's "right" to have a woman at home to clean up behind the fridge, eh? They can't do that if they're too busy pretending to be as important as men in the workforce, eh?
Funny how saying "not politically correct" excuses so much these days...
No, what he's saying is that any businessperson who has to pay for their workers would be crazy if they employ someone who is pregnant or soon to be pregnant (recently married, tells everyone how they are trying to get pregnant etc.). They are entitled to a year or two of paid leave and then rarely come back afterwards.
Imagine if one of your lecturers got pregnant three quarters of the way through the academic year, and as a result all the work you had handed in had to be redone and resubmitted to the new replacement lecturer, who was less qualified than the original. It is equally unfair to employers and co-workers. If women want to get pregnant, they can bloody well get a husband to pay for it or bludge off the state, not some poor employer who they basically trick into employing them.
So how's your bookshop going, Ben?
I haven't had any assistants get pregnant lately luckily, but other than that I can't complain. Ebay sales are quite good.
This exact situation happened with the local business association. Some poor pregnant maiden needed a source of income so she got a job as the co-ordinator for the association, did it for a couple of weeks (and not terribly well from what I recall) then went off to have her baby at our expense. Meanwhile she kindly arranged for us to hire one of her friends to do her job, who was even more incompetent than her and we essentially wasted a year because she didn't do any of the work she was supposed to do.
We then got a very competent, hard-working and friendly lady to take the position this year. Unfortuantely some HR genius at the council decided it would be a good idea to advertise her job and invite her to re-apply (they only had 3 applicants the first time they did so) and she got so put out she declined to re-apply and we haven't seen her since.
To give you some idea of the disruption is causes, we spent about the same time discussing it at meetings and spent about the some amount of money as we did for our portion of the Darebin Festival.
To give you some idea of the disruption is causes, we spent about the same time discussing it at meetings and spent about the some amount of money as we did for our portion of the Darebin Festival.
Ben, what *you* argue (that a woman who plans to have a baby while in your employ could be more trouble than she's worth) is rather different to what Bloom is quoted as saying (that no woman who could possibly give birth should be employed).
Actually, I think you have lost sight of the trees for the forest. He said nothing of the sort (in the quote above at least). Go back and re-read it before your next post please, it will make you look less of an ass.
And who would be upset if a newly elected female MP announced that she was representing single mothers and was going to promote women's rights? The only reason what he says is controversial is if we assume (as feminism generally does) that men are 'evil' and women are 'good'.
Also notice that he says 'businessMAN'. Maybe if they can find a generous businesswoman willing to bankroll a baby factory it would be fine. But somehow I doubt that will happen.
"... it will make you look less of an ass."
Nice.
I can think of a number of people who would be upset about *any* MP championing the rights of single mothers. John Howard springs to mind immediately.
You *do* understand the difference between "lady of child-bearing age" and "person who intends to have a baby while in my employ, then piss off", don't you? Not all female of Employer X will intend to have a baby. Of those that do, not all will plan to have this baby while employed by X. Of those that do, not all plan to piss off immediately afterwards. Make sense?
Howard throws as much money at single mothers as anyone before him. While child bearing age is technically between about 14 and 45, there is a definate demographic of women who are trying to get pregnant. Good luck to them, but what I am saying is that it is less trouble and expense to hire someone who is terminally ill and going to die after 6 months in your employ than someone who is pregnant or soon to be.
I am a businessman, so I share much the same viewpoint as the right honourable European MP. And the space behind my fridge is filthy!
Why not clean it? Or are you too 'incompetent'?
Well slavery is no longer legal, so if you have any suggestions I'm listening.
Hey, you're a female, why don't you do it for him Cathy???
Still talking to yourself, Ben?
What's the temperature in Beijing???
What's the temperature in Beijing???
While he's not politically correct, he's certainly factually correct. No businessperson in their right mind will employ a pregnancy-prone woman because it is a lot less trouble to just donate a couple of years worth of salary and benefits to the Women's Electoral Lobby and forego all the time wasted dealing with interviewing replacements etc.