|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2007 07:53:37 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested to know what you think on a more conceptual level. Would you agree with either of the following statements?
1) Women are born differently to men and society should treat them differently where there biological differences either disadvantage or advantage them.
2) Women are born differently to men but society should take steps to ensure that their biological differences do not give them an advantage or disadvantage, where practicable. |
that's like choosing between value meal set A or set B.
darn, while i liked the burger in set A, the side dishes that came with set B is what i'd preferred. point is, i could agree or disagree with either one. you cant just create a hard rule and expect EVERYTHING related be apply that rule. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 10:01:26 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested to know what you think on a more conceptual level. Would you agree with either of the following statements?
1) Women are born differently to men and society should treat them differently where there biological differences either disadvantage or advantage them.
2) Women are born differently to men but society should take steps to ensure that their biological differences do not give them an advantage or disadvantage, where practicable. |
that's like choosing between value meal set A or set B.
darn, while i liked the burger in set A, the side dishes that came with set B is what i'd preferred. point is, i could agree or disagree with either one. you cant just create a hard rule and expect EVERYTHING related be apply that rule. |
agreed. which is why the issue is so complicated. Should women be eqaul (as more per frisca's definition) yes! ARE they different? OF COURSE! BUT those differences are often manipulated, stretched and simply made up. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 10:45:18 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested to know what you think on a more conceptual level. Would you agree with either of the following statements?
1) Women are born differently to men and society should treat them differently where there biological differences either disadvantage or advantage them.
2) Women are born differently to men but society should take steps to ensure that their biological differences do not give them an advantage or disadvantage, where practicable. |
that's like choosing between value meal set A or set B.
darn, while i liked the burger in set A, the side dishes that came with set B is what i'd preferred. point is, i could agree or disagree with either one. you cant just create a hard rule and expect EVERYTHING related be apply that rule. |
I obviously failed at creating a polemic. I'll try again.
As a general concept, should society take no steps to rebalance the biological differences between men and women towards equality, or should it take some steps (acknowledging that it would be impossible to take all steps)?
What I am trying to get at is whether whether you agree in principle that equality is desireable or not? Its desireability is something that I assumed when I posted a couple of days ago, but could be debated.
The reason I ask is that a debate (A) whether equality is desireable or not (a conceptual debate over the structure of society) is quite different to a debate (B) over what steps should be introduced to achieve equality and at what cost (a more practical debate over how the goal of equality should be worked towards in practice). At the moment there appear to be a lot of people mixing the two which makes for confusing reading and thinking.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 10:53:10 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Men are not hurt by granting a woman maternity leave. Women are hurt however when they lose their jobs or recieve pay cuts simply for having a baby.
|
Don't tell me no one pays a price for a woman taking maternity leave. Everyone who has to pick up the slack pays for it. Their families pay for it since they likely have to work more hours. When the woman takes her 12 weeks and then informs her employer that she's not planning to return at all, those people who were picking up the slack pay even more.
Even if she does return to work full time, how can you tell me that someone who worked only 75% of the year should receive the same consideration for raises/promotions/bonuses as all the people who worked the whole year? It doesn't work that way if I'm out sick or on medical leave. |
Oh right. SO lets stop having babies and see where society goes. Because women are the ones that FREAKIN HAVE TO REPOPULATE THE EARTH LETS PUNISH THEM FOR IT.
Get real. |
It's very real.
The effect of someone leaving for 12 weeks will greatly increase the workload of everyone else who works with that person, especially if they work in a small organization.
Why is it that you think someone who takes 25% of the year off should receive the same consideration as someone who doesn't? I'm not talking about punishing them for having children, I'm talking about being fair to everyone. By that I mean that they should be evaluated on the portion of the year they worked and not as if they had contributed for the whole year e.g. If everyone receives a $10,000 end of the year bonus, they should get $7500, not $10,000.
You make it sound as if the human race is in danger of extinction. Do you have any data to suggest that? The last I heard, the danger is overpopulation, not extinction. Having babies is fine, but don't think that people are somehow saving the world by bringing another person into it. There are about 6.5 Billion people on the Earth now. By 2050, it's predicted to be 9.4 Billion. If people stopped reproducing for several years, it might save the world by reducing poverty, hunger and stop global warming (or at least greatly slow it down). When I think about human reproduction being stopped, to control the population I don't see any real downside to the effects on society. What makes you think that having babies contributes so much to society, when, if anything, there are too many people already?
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 11:08:28. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 11:51:30 AM · #155 |
escapetooz/Monica,
I understand this issue is very close to you, but I would suggest that being less combative might get you further along with your argument. You seem to get indignant very quickly. I tend to agree with much of what you say, but find it difficult to say so because of your hostility. I think everyone (including me) is guilty of this at some time or other, but sound arguments call for sound discussion in my view. Just a thought, carry on. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 04:39:32 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Louis:
escapetooz/Monica,
I understand this issue is very close to you, but I would suggest that being less combative might get you further along with your argument. You seem to get indignant very quickly. I tend to agree with much of what you say, but find it difficult to say so because of your hostility. I think everyone (including me) is guilty of this at some time or other, but sound arguments call for sound discussion in my view. Just a thought, carry on. |
I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread. I've been trying to keep as civil as possible but the same 3 or so people keep coming at me and it's really becoming a strain. One has gone as far as name calling. I tried giving my calm responses in the begining but everything I said became warped anyway and so I have stopped trying to be so sugary sweet. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 04:51:04 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Men are not hurt by granting a woman maternity leave. Women are hurt however when they lose their jobs or recieve pay cuts simply for having a baby.
|
Don't tell me no one pays a price for a woman taking maternity leave. Everyone who has to pick up the slack pays for it. Their families pay for it since they likely have to work more hours. When the woman takes her 12 weeks and then informs her employer that she's not planning to return at all, those people who were picking up the slack pay even more.
Even if she does return to work full time, how can you tell me that someone who worked only 75% of the year should receive the same consideration for raises/promotions/bonuses as all the people who worked the whole year? It doesn't work that way if I'm out sick or on medical leave. |
Oh right. SO lets stop having babies and see where society goes. Because women are the ones that FREAKIN HAVE TO REPOPULATE THE EARTH LETS PUNISH THEM FOR IT.
Get real. |
It's very real.
The effect of someone leaving for 12 weeks will greatly increase the workload of everyone else who works with that person, especially if they work in a small organization.
Why is it that you think someone who takes 25% of the year off should receive the same consideration as someone who doesn't? I'm not talking about punishing them for having children, I'm talking about being fair to everyone. By that I mean that they should be evaluated on the portion of the year they worked and not as if they had contributed for the whole year e.g. If everyone receives a $10,000 end of the year bonus, they should get $7500, not $10,000.
You make it sound as if the human race is in danger of extinction. Do you have any data to suggest that? The last I heard, the danger is overpopulation, not extinction. Having babies is fine, but don't think that people are somehow saving the world by bringing another person into it. There are about 6.5 Billion people on the Earth now. By 2050, it's predicted to be 9.4 Billion. If people stopped reproducing for several years, it might save the world by reducing poverty, hunger and stop global warming (or at least greatly slow it down). When I think about human reproduction being stopped, to control the population I don't see any real downside to the effects on society. What makes you think that having babies contributes so much to society, when, if anything, there are too many people already? |
I don't need data to suggest that if all women stopped having babies very quickly society would cease to exist. It's common sense. Another example of how I cannot say anything without having my words twisted. I know there is overpopulation but your suggestion to stop having babies for a few years is really out there. A 7 year gap in births all over the world? That would just be bizzarre. What we need is less people having unwated children that end up uneducated, poor, in group homes, etc.
A step towards that would be more comprehensive sex-ed. Sex-ed versus abstinence only courses are of much debate in the feminist realm. It seems as though all the evidence shows that abstinence only does not work, and can in fact be dangerous (if as extreme as to not talk about protection, diseases, even HOW babies are made) and work for the exact opposite of what we want. Nothing is going to stop teens (or adults for that matter) from having sex but we can certainly hope that with some more education they will know better than to do so without thinking and unprotected.
As far as the maternity leave/bonus argument. I think that's a bit off topic. Sure, get a bonus for what you work, I would assume a man or woman leaving for medical reasons would get the same treatment. But don't tell me it's ok not to hire a woman because she might one day have a baby.
And you say 25% of the year off as if a woman is having a baby every year. A woman works at a company for 10 years and has one or 2 babies, you think that's enough to have her be considered less than a man or lose her job or receive lower pay? I don't. I don't think it should have any affect on raises either. Would you feel that way if it was your wife/mother/ sister, etc? Suppose she worked hard at her job for years and then wasn't considered because the year she was up for promotion she had a baby?
A man can become a father and if he doesn't take paternity leave he is more entitled to a raise than his wife who actually birthed the baby? No. That is discrimination. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 05:22:59 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would be interested to know what you think on a more conceptual level. Would you agree with either of the following statements?
1) Women are born differently to men and society should treat them differently where there biological differences either disadvantage or advantage them.
2) Women are born differently to men but society should take steps to ensure that their biological differences do not give them an advantage or disadvantage, where practicable. |
that's like choosing between value meal set A or set B.
darn, while i liked the burger in set A, the side dishes that came with set B is what i'd preferred. point is, i could agree or disagree with either one. you cant just create a hard rule and expect EVERYTHING related be apply that rule. |
I obviously failed at creating a polemic. I'll try again.
As a general concept, should society take no steps to rebalance the biological differences between men and women towards equality, or should it take some steps (acknowledging that it would be impossible to take all steps)?
What I am trying to get at is whether whether you agree in principle that equality is desireable or not? Its desireability is something that I assumed when I posted a couple of days ago, but could be debated.
The reason I ask is that a debate (A) whether equality is desireable or not (a conceptual debate over the structure of society) is quite different to a debate (B) over what steps should be introduced to achieve equality and at what cost (a more practical debate over how the goal of equality should be worked towards in practice). At the moment there appear to be a lot of people mixing the two which makes for confusing reading and thinking. |
LOL. Your wording is still a bit confusing. I get the basic point of it though. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 05:56:11 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Men are not hurt by granting a woman maternity leave. Women are hurt however when they lose their jobs or recieve pay cuts simply for having a baby.
|
Don't tell me no one pays a price for a woman taking maternity leave. Everyone who has to pick up the slack pays for it. Their families pay for it since they likely have to work more hours. When the woman takes her 12 weeks and then informs her employer that she's not planning to return at all, those people who were picking up the slack pay even more.
Even if she does return to work full time, how can you tell me that someone who worked only 75% of the year should receive the same consideration for raises/promotions/bonuses as all the people who worked the whole year? It doesn't work that way if I'm out sick or on medical leave. |
Oh right. SO lets stop having babies and see where society goes. Because women are the ones that FREAKIN HAVE TO REPOPULATE THE EARTH LETS PUNISH THEM FOR IT.
Get real. |
It's very real.
The effect of someone leaving for 12 weeks will greatly increase the workload of everyone else who works with that person, especially if they work in a small organization.
Why is it that you think someone who takes 25% of the year off should receive the same consideration as someone who doesn't? I'm not talking about punishing them for having children, I'm talking about being fair to everyone. By that I mean that they should be evaluated on the portion of the year they worked and not as if they had contributed for the whole year e.g. If everyone receives a $10,000 end of the year bonus, they should get $7500, not $10,000.
You make it sound as if the human race is in danger of extinction. Do you have any data to suggest that? The last I heard, the danger is overpopulation, not extinction. Having babies is fine, but don't think that people are somehow saving the world by bringing another person into it. There are about 6.5 Billion people on the Earth now. By 2050, it's predicted to be 9.4 Billion. If people stopped reproducing for several years, it might save the world by reducing poverty, hunger and stop global warming (or at least greatly slow it down). When I think about human reproduction being stopped, to control the population I don't see any real downside to the effects on society. What makes you think that having babies contributes so much to society, when, if anything, there are too many people already? |
I don't need data to suggest that if all women stopped having babies very quickly society would cease to exist. It's common sense. Another example of how I cannot say anything without having my words twisted. I know there is overpopulation but your suggestion to stop having babies for a few years is really out there. A 7 year gap in births all over the world? That would just be bizzarre. What we need is less people having unwated children that end up uneducated, poor, in group homes, etc.
A step towards that would be more comprehensive sex-ed. Sex-ed versus abstinence only courses are of much debate in the feminist realm. It seems as though all the evidence shows that abstinence only does not work, and can in fact be dangerous (if as extreme as to not talk about protection, diseases, even HOW babies are made) and work for the exact opposite of what we want. Nothing is going to stop teens (or adults for that matter) from having sex but we can certainly hope that with some more education they will know better than to do so without thinking and unprotected.
As far as the maternity leave/bonus argument. I think that's a bit off topic. Sure, get a bonus for what you work, I would assume a man or woman leaving for medical reasons would get the same treatment. But don't tell me it's ok not to hire a woman because she might one day have a baby.
And you say 25% of the year off as if a woman is having a baby every year. A woman works at a company for 10 years and has one or 2 babies, you think that's enough to have her be considered less than a man or lose her job or receive lower pay? I don't. I don't think it should have any affect on raises either. Would you feel that way if it was your wife/mother/ sister, etc? Suppose she worked hard at her job for years and then wasn't considered because the year she was up for promotion she had a baby?
A man can become a father and if he doesn't take paternity leave he is more entitled to a raise than his wife who actually birthed the baby? No. That is discrimination. |
Society would certainly not cease to exist if no babies were born for a number of years. I find your assumption that somehow the earth needs repopulating totally absurd. Were several billion people wiped out recently? Are humans really on the brink of extinction? What makes you think a constant stream of babies is the lifeblood of society? There are already too many people, why add to the burden? Certainly if no babies were ever born again, humans would die off, but that's not what we're talking about.
Speaking of twisting words, I never said anyone should not hire a woman because she might have a baby someday, that is wrong. I just don't think a woman should get extra compensation for doing so. If I take a leave of absence for education, to care for a sick family member, paternity or whatever, I'm entitled to pick up my career where I left off, but not to having it advanced in absentia.
Again, I don't mean that a woman will take 25% of every year off, but in those years, she's only working 75% of the time. I see no reason for her career to advance disproportionate to her participation in the workplace just because she chose to have a baby, no more than I would expect mine to advance if I took leave.
To answer your last question, if he's working, then yes, he is more entitled to that promotion. She could just as easily chosen not to have a child or to return to work and have the father stay at home, or any number of options.
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 17:57:31. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:04:06 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again, I don't mean that a woman will take 25% of every year off, but in those years, she's only working 75% of the time. I see no reason for her career to advance disproportionate to her participation in the workplace just because she chose to have a baby, no more than I would expect mine to advance if I took leave.
|
I tend to agree with that statement, in so as much that I don't think every couple should have children just because they can (or feel they should).
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:12:49 PM · #161 |
I'm almost certain no one will respond to or acknowledge this post because its collaborative in nature, and not antagonistic, but I think this discussion is mired in discussing specific anecdotal cases and not really addressing any of the major issues with respect to substantive equality. Its not about who gets a promotion, its about the inherent biases that already exist, not whether a woman or a man should get paid less or more.
I find this discussion disheartening in its small-mindedness. Its not about WHAT happens, its about fairness, equality, recognizing differences and NOT penalizing people for them, because they ARE NOT weaknesses. Its not a weakness to be female, or old, or a different colour. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:38:35 PM · #162 |
Some videos for those of you that are audio/visually inclined.
DISCLAIMER (not neccessary for most, only those that use every last detail against me): Some of the videos have harsh language. These videos do not stand for all of my beliefs, nor do I agree with EVERY WORD, but on the whole I find them moving and/or informative.
Slam Poetry on Rape
Interviews of Men on the Street about Feminism
Anti-Porn VS. Sex-Positive Feminists
If you are going to watch this one at all, watch the whole thing. It starts anti-porn, which I myself do not agree with and I know you in here will have a field day with it. The latter, sex-positive and the stance on porn for BOTH are really informative.
Bell Hooks on Rap
I found this one really interesting. And hey, it's about men... for all those so interested in turning this thread into men's issues.
Black Stereotyping: Maleness and Coolness |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:40:58 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm almost certain no one will respond to or acknowledge this post because its collaborative in nature, and not antagonistic, but I think this discussion is mired in discussing specific anecdotal cases and not really addressing any of the major issues with respect to substantive equality. Its not about who gets a promotion, its about the inherent biases that already exist, not whether a woman or a man should get paid less or more.
I find this discussion disheartening in its small-mindedness. Its not about WHAT happens, its about fairness, equality, recognizing differences and NOT penalizing people for them, because they ARE NOT weaknesses. Its not a weakness to be female, or old, or a different colour. |
I take notice and I thank you. You speak much more eloquently than I. I'm having a hard time keeping my head above water because the discussion has lost all scope and direction. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:44:02 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm almost certain no one will respond to or acknowledge this post because its collaborative in nature, and not antagonistic, but I think this discussion is mired in discussing specific anecdotal cases and not really addressing any of the major issues with respect to substantive equality. Its not about who gets a promotion, its about the inherent biases that already exist, not whether a woman or a man should get paid less or more.
I find this discussion disheartening in its small-mindedness. Its not about WHAT happens, its about fairness, equality, recognizing differences and NOT penalizing people for them, because they ARE NOT weaknesses. Its not a weakness to be female, or old, or a different colour. |
It's about both the biases that people have and what happens when they manifest themselves.
What happens is important because that's what people see. They can't see into someone's mind and know that he or she is biased. People only see the actions. Even actions not motivated or tainted by an underlying bias can often be perceived as such by someone who believes a bias to be at work.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:49:52 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Society would certainly not cease to exist if no babies were born for a number of years. I find your assumption that somehow the earth needs repopulating totally absurd. Were several billion people wiped out recently? Are humans really on the brink of extinction? What makes you think a constant stream of babies is the lifeblood of society? There are already too many people, why add to the burden? Certainly if no babies were ever born again, humans would die off, but that's not what we're talking about.
Speaking of twisting words, I never said anyone should not hire a woman because she might have a baby someday, that is wrong. I just don't think a woman should get extra compensation for doing so. If I take a leave of absence for education, to care for a sick family member, paternity or whatever, I'm entitled to pick up my career where I left off, but not to having it advanced in absentia.
Again, I don't mean that a woman will take 25% of every year off, but in those years, she's only working 75% of the time. I see no reason for her career to advance disproportionate to her participation in the workplace just because she chose to have a baby, no more than I would expect mine to advance if I took leave.
To answer your last question, if he's working, then yes, he is more entitled to that promotion. She could just as easily chosen not to have a child or to return to work and have the father stay at home, or any number of options. |
Again you miss my whole point. IF babies stop being born, eventually we will all die off. That is what I refered to as common sense. The fact that you keep bringing up overpopulation is irrelivant because obviously we are not immortal. THAT IS what I was talking about but you started harping on the whole overpopulation thing, which i AGREE with you on. However stopping childbirth is not an option, it violates basic human rights, so lets quit that discussion. This is getting silly.
AH HA! See this is just it. You said pick up where you left off after a leave. A woman is NOT garaunteed to pick up where she left off after maternity leave. There isn't enough protection. She can be DEMOTED while she is gone! I didn't ever mean to say she should have any advancements while she is not there, that wouldn't make sense.
You are only seeing the world through a man's eyes and it is sad. If the woman is just as good at her job as the husband, she is just as entitled to what she is due, with or without leave. That you are arguing against this tells me you are forgetting compeltely that a woman shouldn't HAVE to choose between baby or career. The father doesn't. He doesn't pop out the baby, he just has one there. You are forgetting the biological factors... aka the time before and after the birth where a woman PHYSICALLY needs the time off.
edited and cut for brevity
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 19:02:48. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 06:55:02 PM · #166 |
MATERNITY LEAVE ARTICLE
how about if we are to talk about this, lets know a little something about it? Try to get this thing back on track.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:38:41 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
LOL. Your wording is still a bit confusing. I get the basic point of it though. |
Okay - one last time.
do people who disagree with escapetooz disagree because they think that:
A - society should make no allowances for the gender difference, and if the result is unequal, then it is what it is.
B - society should try and make allowances for gender differences, but you disagree over specific policies, or the cost, or the extent, or ways in which equality measures have been introduced.
These are totally different arguments - it would help a lot if someone would answer.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:42:11 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Society would certainly not cease to exist if no babies were born for a number of years. I find your assumption that somehow the earth needs repopulating totally absurd. Were several billion people wiped out recently? Are humans really on the brink of extinction? What makes you think a constant stream of babies is the lifeblood of society? There are already too many people, why add to the burden? Certainly if no babies were ever born again, humans would die off, but that's not what we're talking about.
Speaking of twisting words, I never said anyone should not hire a woman because she might have a baby someday, that is wrong. I just don't think a woman should get extra compensation for doing so. If I take a leave of absence for education, to care for a sick family member, paternity or whatever, I'm entitled to pick up my career where I left off, but not to having it advanced in absentia.
Again, I don't mean that a woman will take 25% of every year off, but in those years, she's only working 75% of the time. I see no reason for her career to advance disproportionate to her participation in the workplace just because she chose to have a baby, no more than I would expect mine to advance if I took leave.
To answer your last question, if he's working, then yes, he is more entitled to that promotion. She could just as easily chosen not to have a child or to return to work and have the father stay at home, or any number of options. |
Again you miss my whole point. IF babies stop being born, eventually we will all die off. That is what I refered to as common sense. The fact that you keep bringing up overpopulation is irrelivant because obviously we are not immortal. THAT IS what I was talking about but you started harping on the whole overpopulation thing, which i AGREE with you on. However stopping childbirth is not an option, it violates basic human rights, so lets quit that discussion. This is getting silly.
AH HA! See this is just it. You said pick up where you left off after a leave. A woman is NOT garaunteed to pick up where she left off after maternity leave. There isn't enough protection. She can be DEMOTED while she is gone! I didn't ever mean to say she should have any advancements while she is not there, that wouldn't make sense.
You are only seeing the world through a man's eyes and it is sad. If the woman is just as good at her job as the husband, she is just as entitled to what she is due, with or without leave. That you are arguing against this tells me you are forgetting compeltely that a woman shouldn't HAVE to choose between baby or career. The father doesn't. He doesn't pop out the baby, he just has one there. You are forgetting the biological factors... aka the time before and after the birth where a woman PHYSICALLY needs the time off.
edited and cut for brevity |
I only ask the question about re-populating the earth because you're the one who brought it up, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS no less. If you're willing to admit the idiocy of that claim, then I can accept that.
You're right that in most cases the father doesn't get to choose, he goes back to work regardless of any of his wishes to stay home and care for his children. Yet here you are, complaining about wanting to have both when men most often don't have a choice at all. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:47:13 PM · #169 |
spazmo. Read the article please
As for paternity leave, I'm all for it. Most progressive countries that have maternity leave have the option of the father using it or spliting it.
It seems you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing now. You are arguing on what you think I stand for, not what I actually do.
Please read the article so we may have an informed discussion. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:50:37 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
MATERNITY LEAVE ARTICLE
how about if we are to talk about this, lets know a little something about it? Try to get this thing back on track. |
Though maternity leave under the FMLA may stink compared to the rest of the world try telling your boss you're going to take paternity leave. At least with women, it's still expected that they will take leave. Not so for men. In many workplaces if you do it or try to, it's career suicide.
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 20:01:13. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:53:22 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
spazmo.
It seems you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing now. You are arguing on what you think I stand for, not what I actually do.
|
I'm arguing with what you post, not necessarily what you think.
I can read, I just can't read minds.
If I'm arguing on something you don't stand for, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you have written. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 08:31:09 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
spazmo.
It seems you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing now. You are arguing on what you think I stand for, not what I actually do.
|
I'm arguing with what you post, not necessarily what you think.
I can read, I just can't read minds.
If I'm arguing on something you don't stand for, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you have written. |
You are right. This argument has swung this way and that and gotten so confused that I say something on a very small topic and you take it to be my view on everything. I made that example about the father and mother simply to say that they both have the great privilage of having a child but the father does not have to go through the physical rigors. He should not be prized over she. That was my point. You took it and said men were disadvantaged because they don't get the time off as if that was an argument against what I said when it wasn't.
That is what I'm trying to say, not that you should read my mind, but that you shouldn't misinterperet my words.
Since you did read the article. Do you agree that men and women both, and the children even more so, would benefit from fighting for more parental rights and leave?
If so we are on the same page and the rest of this is just nonsense semantics.
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 20:33:21. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 08:40:24 PM · #173 |
Jeez.
I always miss the fun. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 08:59:43 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Do you agree that men and women both, and the children even more so, would benefit from fighting for more parental rights and leave?
|
On this, we agree. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 09:07:50 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Do you agree that men and women both, and the children even more so, would benefit from fighting for more parental rights and leave?
|
On this, we agree. |
but hey, that's bad for business.
so if i employ a temp staff to do your job while you were away on your justified and entitled leave, you shouldn't complaint. well, one thing may lead to another, so maybe after a few weeks, i might pay this new employee more, because he is productive! :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 10:39:52 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 10:39:52 AM EDT.
|
