 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) My opinion on this issue is similar to mine on other issues regarding the personal goings-on of one's life (e.g., what kind of substances one uses, whether a person feels it's time to leave this earth, what one does with one's own reproductive (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) It certainly provides extra benefit to one sex (or both, if men get paid more because of it). Is that bad? I guess I think it's not ideal. (...) I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that men and women think (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
This is a non-issue if we pay workers for the work they do - not the time they spend at work. If we don't do this (it is not always possible), but give women 10% of the time off work, then it makes employers (esp. small ones) less likely to employ (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well, depends how you define sexist, I guess :) Does it make sense? Sure. Is the impulse for you to suggest such a thing solely based on the fact that you personally (and women in general) would "benefit" from it (actually, as you implied, it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this sexism?
|
|
I'll try not to make this a long ramble, but a short and to-the-point suggestion, and a few questions. I think that companies should give women a day (possibly two) sick days off per month to deal with the physical symptoms of their menstrual cycle. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the heck?
|
|
Lugnet said I was not allowed to post to lugnet.general in an earlier post. Someone please explain to me how I would not be allowed to post to lugnet.general? Here is the infamous red words you get when you screw up... Results: Your message was not (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Hehe. Good. I like you better this way! (From your .debate posts I barely recognize the funny guy I met at Brickfest last year! It took me awhile to convince myself I was not mistaken and it was the same person. You're usually so serious (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
Thanks for the response Shiri, I was begining to worry that my poor behavior had actually run everyone off from the topic. That, I think, would be an embarrassing first. I'll be disagreeing more politely now. :-) (...) In as much as you are (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL! OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly pointed out (and you seemed to agree). I'm claiming (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET as an "Adult" site
|
|
(...) Seems a bit suss, although of course people can change over time. I had a go at the jal-baiting, failing to follow my own advice at (URL) : (...) IMHO the best response is to deal with them on their own terms. Leaving them alone is probably (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
