Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tanya K. Burkhart writes:
> > so I theoretically work harder and contribute more to the company than
> > someone *with* kids-- or at least harder than I *would* if *I* had kids. Do
> > I "deserve" more *from* the company?
>
> How about the guy who works his tail off 50+ a week to support his family?
> Does he deserve more? (Since we are totally derailed from the original
> topic here...)
Well-- my point would be that the guy who works 50+ hours a week to support
his family "deserves" (in a purely philosophically 'fair' world) exactly the
same amount as the guy who works 50+ hours a week just to be rich. The fact
that he's supporting his family is irrelevant to how much he "deserves",
because theoretically, their input into the company that's paying them is
the same.
But the reality is that humans *do* like to consider "why?" because they
like to be charitable. But when that charity is over-extended, it's a
problem. And that charity is where we humans differ like crazy. Should the
guy supporting his family then get more? My sense of charity says yes. To
the point that he doesn't have to work? My sense of charity says no. YMMV.
So back to the question, should women deserve a break when it comes to
regular PMS? Sure. Should they deserve extra time off from work? Nah. Or at
least not in all cases, by my own watch. Should they get that extra time off
if they're negatively compensated (in pay or something)? Ok. That works for
me, depending on the compensation. Could be fair to women, could be unfair.
And because it's such a borderline topic, I *KNOW* that such a policy has
the potential to be taken *WAY* off course and become abused. I wouldn't
trust the government with it in a million years. I wouldn't trust 99% of
companies with such a policy. It'd be really tough to make such a policy
fair and avoid its abuse-- Not to say it couldn't be done, but in general,
it's a Bad Thing.
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I've been reading the main drift of this somewhat bemusedly... Strikes me that most sorts of jobs are such that pay ought to be based on contributed value, not on mere hours worked and especially not on need (except for second order effects (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Okay - point taken - sorry to jump down your throat. (...) embolism - not using the spell-check (...) Snip (...) Haha - yeah, I could tell... ;) (...) How about the guy who works his tail off 50+ a week to support his family? Does he deserve (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
