| |
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. These
days would not be transferable from month to month (what's not used gets
lost) so that it's not possible to gain a long vacation for someone who
doesn't suffer from physical symptoms, and never uses those days.
While not all women get "hit badly" by their periods, many do. I personally
find it incredibely hard to function when my stomach is flip-flopping, or
alternatively when I'm drugged w/pain-killers, and I know I'm not the only
one. I think the world would be a better place if women had the hardest
day(s) of their period off - they would feel better resting in bed, their
peers wouldn't have to suffer dealing with someone who's not in her best
mood (1). Since the production level if someone is not feeling well is down
to the pits, it would not be a great loss of resources to the company, yet
working there would become worlds more attractive for women (2), possibly
driving down salaries and gaining a better worker pool.
So, that's my statement, now my questions:
Is this suggestion sexist to the core? Is it really true that men and women
are equal in everything? In that case, why should women get extra "perks"?
Is that unfair to men? If implemented, would this give women an advantage,
or perhaps just lessen nature's disadvantage? Is it really open to abuse or
does it sound reasonable?
Interested to hear your opinion.
-Shiri
(1) I'm not talking PMS alleged symptoms, but the natural reaction that
someone has when they're not feeling well!
(2) And possibly men, since they all try to veer clear away from us during
"that time of month".
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | 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)
| | | 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| I would consider it sexist. I have no problem with giving the time off, but to be fair you'd have to give men the same time off. There are all sorts of physical ailments that people have that require time off, and most companies don't give paid time (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
