niledynodely

Paul O'Brien has just completed his second big job for me - completely renovating and refurbishing a flat for rental and I would like to recommend him without hesitation. He is very reasonably priced, finishes the work to a very high standard and above all is incredibly efficient at getting the job done. He covers all aspects of the work, electrical, carpentry, plumbing, tiling and is very experienced at what he does. He only works on one job at a time and works on it till it is completely finished and the customer is satisfied. If you want any further information you can either pm me or call Paul on 07836597890.

Paul and his team did a great job renovating and extending our house. This involved making a loft which previously could only be used for storage habitable for our daughter, turning a flimsy garden room construction into a proper livable unit, doing a lot of internal decoration including putting in new windows, flooring etc. They also did electrics putting in new ceiling lights and sockets and lots else besides. The quality of the workmanship and finish was excellent, Paul worked very professionally and just got on with the job within the time frame he had given, and when I needed help with for example putting in new gates or double glazing he knew suppliers who provided these at a very reasonable rate. If you would like to see the work please contact me via email or if you would like to speak to Paul his number is 07836597890.

Hi Heft Well I wanted to find out if I was really alone in thinking the way that I do and I think that I am!! "Yes I want to work very much. I really > couldn't stay sane as a mother without it. But I > know it's different for everyone" I don't think it's a choice between working and not working...most women all over the world through all times have worked ....but as i keep saying I don't expect to have the same career as someone without kids - and I don't feel any resentment about that Women absolutely tend towards roles such as > teachers because it fits in with picking our kids > up from school. However this is changing. > I don't think women just tend to those roles cause of history. I think there is biology involved too and women do tend towards caring roles...I just did a quote earlier from a telegraph article I found about how women choose caring professions...and I think there is some sort of tendency there that won't change that easily. I realise of course women can and do do all kinds of things ...I am talking about generalities. The unequal representation of women at higher > levels of the workforce is a result of unjust > discrimination yes, among millions of other > reasons. Not least, as I've said, that men have > the jump on us by hundreds of years. But > Government taking seriously the fact the imbalance > is there is very important. I really disagree with this...I think we are unequally represented because the majority of women all over the world through the ages have prioritised childcare and therefore few have striven to be at higher levels of the workforce. And it seems to me that when women do strive to be there - they get there! There might be lots of discrimination going on (e.g assumptions that women are going to take time off, prioritise their children etc) but I see that sort of discrimination as understandable and perhaps very frustrating but not necessarily unjust. Is Motherhood a problem? Yes I suppose it is, how > sad. I dream of the day when just parenthood will > be a problem! Well that borders on the tragic! But I suppose it is what would happen if people en masse decided that the world of work and politics was more important Yes it's up to the state to sort this out, and > do you know why? Because if you let us do it for > ourselves it'll take forever. Businesses weren't > going to give men and women flexible working hours > unless forced to. Annoyingly people aren't going > to vote-in more women MPs unless they're given all > women shortlists, just like women wont be voted on > to 50% of Boards of big companies - even though > few of the people voting would admit to being > sexist. If you can't achieve equality through the > system as it is now then you have to change the > system. I am interested to know...I don't work for a business and I am not a career woman and I get the feeling you are ....in times of recession and when businesses have enough challenges anyway isn't it really impractical to have all the flexible working practices and maternity and paternity leave etc? Isn't that just going to make it more difficult for everybody? I certainly wouldn't vote in a woman MP just cause she is a woman. I might vote her in cause I thought she was a good MP. I think putting women in artificially will make for trouble in all kinds of ways. We will start feeling (if we don't already) that the women haven't got there entirely on the basis of merit which would be extremely frustrating for those who had got there entirely on merit. Also the women MPs we had didn't give women a good press...when Blair wanted a really grotty job done (like try to push through casinos)he gave it too a woman - I got the feeling that women weren't prepared to stand up to him as they should have done (career too important?). And how can there be 50% of women on boards when there aren't equal numbers of women to choose from? It just means that those who got there wouldn't be so good. Oh and also the women who are in parliament are totally different from me - they have prioritised their careers and handed over their childcare to nannies, and i wouldn't trust them to represent my views one bit. At least your old fashioned politician might have had a wife at home thoroughly linked in with the real world of families and ordinary people - the world the politician is supposed to be representing - and she would have been able to tell him what to do - your woman mp doesn't have that... Well if you thought you had had a good rant before....

apenn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With regard to questions 3 and 4, this gets to > that old debate about nature vs nurture. The > issue that needs to be addressed is that > regardless of where you stand on these questions > there should be equality of opportunity for all > genders for all jobs and types of work. The role > of government (question 8) is to create and > regulate an environment that enables this. Not an > enviable task! > > With regard to Brum's post above - fully support > the general message of your post, however it could > be argued that since men traditionlly hold the > "power" in our society, it is men that have > pigeonholed themselves into their roles and > women's roles are "inflicted" upon them. (Please > don't take this too literally!) Men can choose to > stay at home (albeit with society generally > looking sceptically at their choice). Often if > one parent is going to stay at home, the man > returns to work because he was earning more. And > why is that? Mother's who want to work can face a > lot of obstacles getting into or back into the > workplace. I think what it comes down to for both > genders is the need for - here it comes - good > work-life balance. > -A Hmmmm - I don't fully support Brums post - although i generally support it. I think i am keen to know if there is anywhere where women and men both participate equally in both realms. I just can't imagine women handing over the childcare role so whole heartedly to their partners...speaking personally I suppose I like help with childcare...lots of it preferably but I am not sure if I would be prepared to hand over my primary role. Maybe I am exceptional in that... I would be interested in other women's views on that subject.... re what a penn said ...I don't think we can assume that men have pigeoned themselves in that particular role. There some very interesting gender arguments which suggest that women are at the heart of society and they have given men status as a way of sorting of keeping them on board. Mothers need all the help they can get...men don't and if they don't have incentives like status then they will just wander off into the wilderness. In those sorts of arguments status has been given to men by women (perhaps their mothers ?) ...as for power well I am not too sure about where that resides...sorry ... apenn said not to take it too literally which is exactly what I went and did, but I think maybe what I am suggesting is that sex roles are not just determined by the social and cultural context in which we live and are unlikely to change as wholeheartedly as some would wish for....

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Niledynodely - I would completely agree that there > is an economic as well as social value to what > women do inside the home. Aside from the obvious > caring roles, there are plenty of things that we > do voluntarily and/or within family networks that > have value. I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. > My point was only that I think women should be > enabled to earn money if they want to, and if the > only thing that prevents them doing that is a > child care issue, then it is a legitimate role for > government to assist with that issue. I also think > it is a mistake for a country to prevent women > working, either actively or by omission, since we > do actually need some proportion of the female > population to work in paid roles and to earn > money. But I would not for a minute say that the > work women (of which I am one) do in the home has > no economic value. Nor would I say that one has to > have an economic value to be of worth. A good > example is education - the old saying that if you > educate a man you educate a person, but if you > educate a woman you educate a family, has some > truth in it. A woman who can teach her children > manners, self respect, social awareness, good > diet, exercise, music, reading, a sense of the > history and culture of their country, develop a > curious mind and direct a lot of young energy does > huge social (well as economic) good. Hi Leaglebeagle thanks for your reply - I like very much what you say about the role of women. I am not sure about the extent to which the government can really help out with the childcare issue...I know that it is really good in Denmark but even there it is only after the first year. Also they pay really high taxes to have the system which they have and they have a very small population and country which makes it difficult to compare to us. I am trying to work out where I stand which is I suppose why I started this post. I don't think we could be stopped working - even by omission - too much of the world depends on us for that to happen. But I don't think that I agree with the feminist agenda that there should be equal number of men and women at the top levels as I explained in a previous post. There are women who make a conscious decision not to have children because they love their work or career so much and it seems to me those women can get to the top just as men can. Other women choose to have children and to put work in second place and in some way I think this type of mother and the above career woman has more in common with each other because we have both made choices and had to sacrifice something. Of course there are women who have kids and a proper career but either they are super efficient, special, organised people or else they are prepared to hand over the childcare role to someone else - but either way they are in a minority so I don't see how we can expect to see so many women at the top. About men and women and whether they choose the same type of employment I found something in the Telegraph March 30th - annoyingly I can't find it on the internet but it explains "women are more likely to work for a cause and men for money, according to a new study. Researchers found that women were 10 per cent more productive when their work was linked to something they cared about. Men showed no increase in productivity whether they worked for a noble cause or not. Scientists said men's attitude of working for monetary gain explained why they were paid more because women were attracted to work in lower paid sectors such as health care, education or charity" (reported by Richard Alleyne from findings of the Royal Economic Societ's annual conference). I am not sure whether you are very much in favour of the equality agenda but as I was mentioning about women and work I got onto it.

I want to reply to leagle beagle and katsu queen ...I'm a bit short of time (got to get something done for work!!), but just very quickly what most grabbed my attention was the idea of being economically unviable...you must have seen all those articles which have costed all the things which women do if they don't go to work. But even then I dont think things should have to be costed to be of value....I think that women who don't work outside the home contribute in all kinds of ways...I honestly think we would have healthier communities if there was less emphasis on women working...I haven't worked it all out and am being a bit hypocritical and will think these things through more properly tomorrow....

I see what you mean and you are probably right about that ...it is very tricky. But I do think that all the things we do while we don't work (like reading to kids in schools) should get more recognition.

I get the impression that a lot of the assumptions which underlie government policy re: women, employment, childcare etc are wrong but I want to find out if it is just me that thinks like that or if other women do too. So I put some questions up in the drawing room based on a newspaper article I saw on the subject. Anyway I am sort of most interested in the responses of people actively engaged in childcare so I thought I would mention it here in the hope you might go to the drawing room and have a look. Thanks

louisiana Wrote: > > There's all kinds of assumptions there already. > Want vs need? > Home-office-based workers? (e.g. consultancy of > many kinds, writers and editors) > > I would love to say I don't want to work *and* I > don't have to. But I do have to work, though I > don't want to. And I work from home. Hi Louisiana - they aren't my assumptions though. I think those are the assumptions of women in government. I get the impression they think we all actually WANT to work when actually we HAVE TO and if there were things that could be done so that we didn't HAVE TO work (particulary when our children are very small) that would be great. For example - I think it was Frank Field he suggested that if we got many years of child benefit condensed into for example the first 3 years of our child's life - and then didn't get it later (when they were bigger and it was easier for us to work) - that would be really good cause we wouldn't have to work when we didn't really want to. I get the impression the government are working on the wrong assumptions and that is what I want to find out.....

Hello womanofdulwich - thank you very much for answering all those questions - I am interested in finding out how other women view things because I often get the feeling I am way out of line with other people and want to find out if that is really the case. Like you I don't think that inequality is about unjust discrimination...there is exactly inequality for the reasons you give. But because of that I don't understand why the government go to such pains to ensure equal representation of women at all levels. If you have only got a very small pool of women applying for the very high powered jobs why on earth should there be equal representation at all levels? If the govt insist on it as HH seems determined to do we will probably end up with women being unfairly promoted. With question 8 I am really puzzled by how withdrawing benefits would lead women to having more children? I don't get that. I don't see why the state should encourage women to work. It seems to me that there is a huge really important role to be done in the home and community and if more of us were around I think children would be a lot happier. (by the way I agree with most of what you say but I am just picking on the bits I disagree with cause I am contrary and find disagreement more interesting). And I also don't think extended school are a good idea because I think it is hard for children to spend so much time of the day outside of the home. The children's society did a really good report 'A good childhood' and I think that one of the things that came out was the children wanted their parents to spend more time with them. I really like what you say on number 6.

> The solution would be Toby Young-style > "Comprehensive Grammars" - all pupils are in > together but streaming exists within subject > groups to allow the brightest to forge ahead and > extra attention to be given to those struggling. > > The other major change I would like to see in > education is that grades are not based on absolute > marks but are a percentage or banding result. > Grades are not there to tell you how well you've > done per se, they are there to tell you how well > you have done compared to everyone else. If > everyone get's A* it says nothing about how clever > you are compared to your peers. Exams are no > easier or harder now than they were 50 years ago - > just differently graded. Only the top 10% (as an > example) should be given an 'A', not all of those > scoring 90% in an exam. I think that Toby Young solution sounds terrible. The whole problem with comprehensives was they set up one type of educational system (basically academic) and with it prioritised one system of values. Other countries value vocational skills like carpentry, baking, plumbing, building and because they properly value them they properly train people in them and these people then value themselves. And because they properly value them people actually want to learn those skills so if they aren't academic they have somewhere else to turn without feeling that they have in any way failed. I think competitive educational systems are fine as long as there are other roads to travel along if you don't want to enter that particular rat race. And another spin off is if you properly train a workforce you don't have to nick skilled people who have been trained up at the expense of tax payers from other countries.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest the article raises some good points, > but the bit which stuck in the throat a little was > the implication that men and women are not suited > to doing the same types of jobs. I really don't > think you can make those sorts of generalisations. Well I know that you get women who can do men's jobs just as well or better than men and vice-versa but in general terms we are different from each other aren't we? Like women do tend to work with people more (e.g if they are in a business often they are in HR) and men more with things (engineering,plumbing building etc). And I don't think those differences are just because of culture and sexism and stuff. Also I notice my male other half like if he gets treated badly he just brushes it off and carries on whereas I would be inclined to say I would never work with that person again and I think that is perhaps a 'gendered' response - women might take things more personally. Also another thing I notice is that men don't have as many problems disagreeing with each other as women do...all those things I think could affect suitability for particular types of jobs??

I was interested in this article by Minette Marin http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article7060971.ece#comment-have-your-say where I found the following paragraph: "Harman?s thinking, like the feminist orthodoxy in the government, is based on the following assumptions, which have always seemed quite wrong to me. First, that all women want to work (for money, outside the home). Second, that all women, including mothers, ought to work. Third, that all women want to do and are equally suited to doing the same work as men. Fourth, that if the number of women working in an organisation is less than 50% of the total, that is in itself evidence that women are being unjustly discriminated against. Fifth, that motherhood is a problem that makes it difficult for women to work. Sixth, that the problem of motherhood can easily be fixed by paid childcare, subsidised if necessary by the state. Seventh, that what all mothers want above all is ?affordable childcare? to enable them to work: children don?t need much of their attention. And finally, that it is for the state to sort out all such family matters" I would really like to know what truth there is in these assumptions and so have translated them into 8 questions. Any responses to any of the questions would be much appreciated! 1. Do you want to work (for money, outside the home)? 2. Do you feel that all women including mothers ought to work for money outside the home? 3. Do we tend towards health, teaching, social or people oriented types of work because we prefer it or because that is the main option available to us? 4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs? 5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce ? is this a result of unjust discrimination? 6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work? 7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsdised if necessary by the state? 8. Do you think it is up to the state to sort out such matters?