 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Are you suggesting that this time be in addition to any other sick time or PTO time? If you consider that a womans cycle is typically 28 days, this will occur 12.7 times a year, so lets round to 13 (1). This would result in 26 days off a year, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Yeah, and it has seemed to me that when discussing how to solve some problem or social dilema, women are more likely to answer practically and men are more likely to answer with idealistic answers. And men and women tend to have different (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Right. (...) Hmm - yeah, many people seem to notice that. A lot of people mention how women seem to able to handle five conversations at once, while men have a hard time with two. Of course that's a broad generalization, but it's one example (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Lego buying stats
|
|
(...) My sister lives in a two bedroom two bath apartment in Santa Monica, probably considered a desirable neighborhood (whenever you see a Southern California street lined with those tall skinny palm trees in a movie, chances are good it is her (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) to (...) time. (...) If he had been so severe that I thought the other children needed their rights protected, I would have done so. In the instance that I'm thinking of, that wasn't the case. He wasn't bein egregiously abusive, he just wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) And in the meantime everyone ELSE has to put up with your child being a brat? You disgust me. You're one of the people that lets their children run rampant over everyone else, letting them "learn", and then "discuss" it with them afterwards. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) But not unreasonable. Sure, some others may miss out on stuff of interest, but I don't think that makes it any less reasonable. (...) Thats a sweeping statement, and not always true. Sometimes continuing a conversation privately *can* bring (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end, on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free flamage at the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) (And (...) I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
