Israeli women's organization is being taken to court by Israeli legislator

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2010-01-12 14:39

Blog entry here. Excerpt:

'Israeli MK* Michael Ben Ari (link added) is taking "Shdulat Hanashim" ("Women's Lobby"), an Israeli women's organization, to court, the Israeli media has reported today. In the framework of a discussion in the Israeli Parliament about a law to extend women's maternity leave from 3 months to 6 months, MK Ben Ari has argued that Israeli employers might refrain from hiring women in the first place. "The proposed law might end up hurting women's status rather than helping them", MK Ben Ari said. MK Ben Ari has given an imaginary example of an accountant's office that would prefer hiring men rather than women as a result of the proposed law.'

---
Ed. note: "MK" is short for "Member of the Knesset", which you can read about here if you are unfamiliar with it. Also, I tried, but could not found a source article on this report. If anyone can post, please do so.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... again the argument is nymphotropic/gynocentric. It is saying it'd be bad for women to get more leave (paid, supported by taxpayers, without equal access to the benefit by half the taxpayers, etc.) because they would be come less-desirable hirees.

How about this: Why are men required to serve in the IDF but not women, though rewarded for doing so? Why is not the MK making the case that the law is patently discriminatory against men instead of that by giving them MORE benefits for performing a *voluntary* biological function (called "reproducing"), it thus hurts their chances of getting hired? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but why are not men being presumed (like women) to be fulfilling the neo-natal parental role, which they are fully capable of doing? And even if not, hey, a new mother is awful busy and she sure could use the new daddy at home, couldn't she? So why isn't HE also allowed to take time off? Or if so, why is not the case that BOTH parents should have this sought-after extra time off?

I guess these ideas are just way to radical for some folks to handle. Same all over the place. Same here in the US, pretty much everywhere, it seems. Can anyone tell me a single country where both fathers and mothers get the EXACT SAME STATE-SPONSORED AND -DEFENDED BENEFITS after having a newborn? Is there even just one?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2010-01-13 01:30