6 thoughts on “EasyJet is ordered to let new mothers stay on the ground and work shorter shifts so they can breastfeed their babies”
Most of the population find breastfeeding in public vaguely embarrassing. The sad fact is that it’s a lifestyle choice usually made to cause the maximum of difficulty for others and I see no reason why they should have to be accommodated.
Use the Ladies or put the child on a bottle. Simples.
So its interesting the Company fought this. Of course it points up the nonsenses. The pilot thing is clearly about the Fawcette’s concern with big salaries. The breastfeeding story the obvious implications of the biology of birth and nursing babies. In a common sense world the discussion would have been a negotiation between the mothers and their union and the company about the practicalities. Rather than invoking “sexism” there just needed to be practical solutions to a temporary issue rather than some sweeping ruling. In my experience all too often tribunals are resorted to over minor issues. As for pilots it seems wise to let only those determined to take such responsibility do so.
So if this company let by a feminist finds its “sexist” every time practical issues arise even it may think again about employing quite so many young women.
It has become a madness that the real discussion; how do we as a society support the birth and rearing of our future generations. Is lost in a fictitious set of ideas of sameness at odds with simple reality. There may well be the case for making adjustments for mothers when there is practical need, and this is both a two way process, short term and includes fathers of course. And common sense would also indicate that such adjustments have consequences particularly if they involve “time off” part time etc. In fact at any one time comparatively few women are actually nursing mums, indeed quite a large number are never mums. So its just daft to apply the particular to the whole.
One of the great problems now in public services is not that the smallish number of new or nursing mums get concessions but that a huge proportion of the workforce take advantage on the flimsiest pretext. No doubt it is this fear that prompted this feminist led airline to fight the case.
Anyway, men knocked ’em up in the first place – it must all be men’s fault. Everything is.
The company has a female CEO, and we recently posted a link to a story about how they’re underwriting the £100,000 training costs of pilots… female pilots, anyway.
Bet they’re gonna become a very prosperous company……
Perhaps they should do the same at NASA and in The Navy, Air Force and your local fire department. How about that for equality. ?
Most of the population find breastfeeding in public vaguely embarrassing. The sad fact is that it’s a lifestyle choice usually made to cause the maximum of difficulty for others and I see no reason why they should have to be accommodated.
Use the Ladies or put the child on a bottle. Simples.
So its interesting the Company fought this. Of course it points up the nonsenses. The pilot thing is clearly about the Fawcette’s concern with big salaries. The breastfeeding story the obvious implications of the biology of birth and nursing babies. In a common sense world the discussion would have been a negotiation between the mothers and their union and the company about the practicalities. Rather than invoking “sexism” there just needed to be practical solutions to a temporary issue rather than some sweeping ruling. In my experience all too often tribunals are resorted to over minor issues. As for pilots it seems wise to let only those determined to take such responsibility do so.
So if this company let by a feminist finds its “sexist” every time practical issues arise even it may think again about employing quite so many young women.
It has become a madness that the real discussion; how do we as a society support the birth and rearing of our future generations. Is lost in a fictitious set of ideas of sameness at odds with simple reality. There may well be the case for making adjustments for mothers when there is practical need, and this is both a two way process, short term and includes fathers of course. And common sense would also indicate that such adjustments have consequences particularly if they involve “time off” part time etc. In fact at any one time comparatively few women are actually nursing mums, indeed quite a large number are never mums. So its just daft to apply the particular to the whole.
One of the great problems now in public services is not that the smallish number of new or nursing mums get concessions but that a huge proportion of the workforce take advantage on the flimsiest pretext. No doubt it is this fear that prompted this feminist led airline to fight the case.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Anyway, men knocked ’em up in the first place – it must all be men’s fault. Everything is.
The company has a female CEO, and we recently posted a link to a story about how they’re underwriting the £100,000 training costs of pilots… female pilots, anyway.
Bet they’re gonna become a very prosperous company……
Perhaps they should do the same at NASA and in The Navy, Air Force and your local fire department. How about that for equality. ?