Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:52:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> Is this suggestion sexist to the core?
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.
> Is it really true that men and women are equal in everything?
I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that
men and women think differently in some ways.
> In that case, why should women get extra "perks"?
Because we need the viewpoints of women in the workplaces even if it costs
letting them off for a day or two?
> Is that unfair to men?
If there is no compensatory action, then it is. And to women who don't need to
take it.
> If implemented, would this give women an advantage,
> or perhaps just lessen nature's disadvantage?
I don't see how. All it would do is make their lives a little easier. It
doesn't seem like an advantage/disadvantage kind of thing.
> Is it really open to abuse or does it sound reasonable?
It seems like it could be abused.
I have worked with women who used menstruation as an excuse for absense. Most
of the time, of course, I had no opinion on the merits of their claims. One in
particular for whom I had to cover seemed to menstruate every fourteen days or
so, which is quite outside the norm. I suspect she was lying. Since she was
abusing the fact that no one could call her on it, that tells me that some
women would abuse your suggested policy.
I think that people should be free to take unpaid leave in most jobs (where
business need doesn't dictate otherwise). Women could chose to take or not
take that deal and there should be no stigma attached. The problem with unpaid
leave in most workplaces is that while it is possible, it is viewed as being a
slackerly pain in the butt kind of thing to do. In my current position, I have
unlimited sick leave -- there is no accounting whatsoever unless it meets
certain criteria and needs to start being called short- or long-term
disability. I like that. And I have noticed that fewer people are sick than
anywhere I have ever worked. I think that's interesting.
Out of curiosity, is your cycle regular enough that you know when you're going
to feel bad ahead of time? You could schedule your work situation around your
cycle, or use the pill to schedule your cycle around work (unless you have
persistent nausia as a result, of course).
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
