Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2001 05:13:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
336 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> Is this suggestion sexist to the core?
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 may NOT be necessarily
defined as beneficial) and that you can rationalize it? No idea. I don't
think anyone can really answer that. Is it *FAIR*? Maybe. I'm open to debate. :)
> 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?
The real answer is it depends. I've always been of the mind that if
something interferes with your productivity at work, it's an issue.
Certainly BEING a man/woman shouldn't affect that in 99% of jobs. But how
often you get "sick" is potentially a performance issue. I mean, if I'm an
employer, I'd certainly take into account (if this law were in place) that a
woman might work fewer days per month than a man. Whether those couple days
*matter* to me depends on the work. Can it be done from home? In your spare
time? Is it constantly on a tight deadline? It's all relevant.
Certainly in my line of work, it would barely matter. We're pushing out code
on a deadline, but you can write your code anywhere, anytime, and the
deadlines are rarely solid and are usually months/weeks in advance. As an
employer in my field, I wouldn't particularly care that much, and unless I
thought the policy was being abused, I'd be satisfied with the policy.
But I've got a friend who does data entry. She's *GOT* to be there nearly
every day because there are daily (hourly!) deadlines, and it's a hassle for
the company to get other people to fill in. An additional 2 days off per
month would make me (as an employer for such a job) veer away from women if
that policy was in force. Now, don't take that to mean that I *wouldn't*
hire women, but that it would be *a* factor.
Anyway, the difficult part would be to encorporate that statistic with
salaray and/or whether someone was being hired or not. It opens the door to
a new excuse for the "truly" sexist and the "truly" sexist-ophobes. Did this
company *really* not hire Ms. X because she would take off more days per
month than a man? Did they offer her a lower salary because of that aspect,
or because she's a woman? If Ms. X is hit hard and takes 2 days off a month,
and Ms. Y takes off 0 days per month because she's barely affected, why is
or isn't that reflected in their salaries?
It makes things REALLY tough to judge. Honestly? If I were an employer, I
would feel justified to make that distinction and potentially be flexible on
the policy for my company, depending on the business type, the size of the
company, etc. I can see situations where I'd both allow it and disallow it.
As a lawmaker, however, I wouldn't touch it as legislation-- it's far too
open to loose interpretation.
> their
> peers wouldn't have to suffer dealing with someone who's not in her best
> mood (1).
> (1) I'm not talking PMS alleged symptoms, but the natural reaction that
> someone has when they're not feeling well!
No offense, but it's always been my assumption that the "alleged"
(stereotypical?) symptoms (crankiness/whatever) ARE because the person's
feeling sick. I mean, heck, when *I'm* headachey, etc, *I* get cranky. The
only difference is I don't get headachey on a regular basis. (Well, ok, not
the ONLY difference, but you know what I mean [hopefully])
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
