If Baboonery were a woman, who'd not taken time off for kids, making the same point, then would you say that?

Of to put that another way, if you'd never had kids and a father where you work, doing the same job as you, took time off for paternity leave while you toiled away for years and he then returned to be treated as if he had developed the same skills and experience as you, would you feel the same about it, Roz?

It's effectively another 'childlessness tax' like the Child Trust Fund complained about on one of the other threads a few days ago, isn't it?

I suppose you might argue that it's good for society despite the apparent unfairness, but then again perhaps this sort of family-friendly benefit just gets voted through because parents are in the majority and vote for their own self-interest.

And getting back to the original article by Southwark, it irks me because, through what is probably just incompetence, it actually comes across as suggesting that the stats show that men are suppressing women. That may be true or it may not, but the stats they quote are not evidence either way.

I was simply suggesting that if you support equal opportunities, in the sense that people should be judged on their merits, then with women taking more time off in their lifetimes than men on average, it wouldn't be right for the average woman to get paid as much as the average man, because the average woman would have weaker skills and experience.

I take it you believe in 'positive discrimination' then, Roz? Just in this case, or in general?

I've never quite made up my mind about positive discrimination, myself.