Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:56:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
416 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Women usually CHOOSE to get pregnant. I don't think they should get PAID >time off for a medical condition they CHOSE to have.
But isn't that a grey area, Tom? How do you prove if it was a choice or not
to get pregnant, yet alone a choice or not to even have sex? I think it
would be hard to prove and/or a waste of time and money even trying. I say
give women the time off with pay for the good grace of humanity.
If a woman is a good full-time, salaried employee who pays her dues and
makes a positive contribution to the organization, it would defy basic human
decency to withhold pay while she has her child. Yes, technically the
employer is not paying the employee for time spent working but doesn't it
build a better, more cohesive business to support the employee in her family
life? What message do we send as a society by seemingly not caring for her
as a human being after she goes home?
Likewise if a woman is an hourly employee and the company policies prevent
compensation for pregnancy, then the state or federal government could step
in to reimburse the employer or the employee directly.
I'll tell you this, I think industrial, corporate American society has
warped our views on the very nature of being people and we've lost respect
for our need and right to reproduce. I think women have the hardest time and
it seems like the role as a mother and nurturer has lost it's appeal, like
it's a "less successful career option." I have a positive view on parenthood
and, if I were the big cheese someday, I'd support it 100% because I think
doing so improves our society in general.
> I also don't think parents should get paid Flex Time while denying it to adults without children. Again, they CHOSE to have kids, and
> rewarding them for it/punishing others for NOT having kids just isn't right.
But how are non-parents really "punished?" Doesn't the need justify the
expense in this case? Again, what message do we send as a society by not
accomodating the needs of parents?
> > I guess my point is I don't really think of it as being sexist because the
> > actual issue isn't someone's sex, it's their severity of physical ailment
> > which may or may not affect their work performance. It just happens to be
> > the case that women get it, and not men. And yes, if it *does* negatively
> > affect their work performance, then either they need to be negatively
> > compensated, or those who don't use it should be positively compensated.
> > Whether that's by extra time off, money, etc, is fair game to be decided,
> > but it needs to be there to reflect the quality of work. If it *doesn't*
> > affect their work performance (for some jobs this would be true), then no
> > compensation is needed. IMHO.
>
> I agree.
If you define pregnancy as a physical ailment then you create a negative
paradigm of something that is completely POSITIVE. Pregnancy is a natural
and normal part of the human life-cycle. It is not an ailment and should not
be referred to as such. As a society, I think our morals on the matter need
fixing otherwise good, hard-working families will suffer and struggle when
they really don't need to. By extending a hand we recoupe the cost in
loyalty and esteem. Isn't that an important, almost intangible ingredient in
any successful organization?
> I've had girlfriends that were basically incapacitated by migraines and other side effects of PMS, and I think they should definitely
> be able to take time off. I just don't think (in general) that it should be PTO, especially if it's known to happen consistently every
> month, unless you then give everyone equal sick days (if the company has a strict limit of sick days), or pay them less because they
> will be working less.
Nature has it's reasons and we have to work around them without being
punitive about it. Reproduction shouldn't be looked down on, we here are the
result of it for one reason or another. I know population growth is a
concern of yours, Tom, so perhaps that contributes to a negative association
with pregnancy?
> So in general, I think this would be a Bad Thing - it might lead to resentment on one side, and possibly lower pay on the other, if it
> weren't handled right (and I can virtually Guarantee you that if the gubmint stepped in, they'd handle it wrong).
The gubmint could have a better role in helping expectant mothers but
there's always some fool who cuts the funding. Same with education. In fact,
the only thing that doesn't get screwed up that much is the moolah for the
military. The Army doesn't really need to have bake sales or potlucks.
> On a side note, all we really need is more women doctors and researchers (because men simply can't relate) so that they can work on PMS
> side effects to find a good battery of drugs to handle the various problems. There are some good ones out there, but none are anywhere
> near perfect.
But again, we look at it negatively, like it's something wrong or bad. It
isn't, it's just a natural part of womanhood and serves a positive purpose.
I don't think more drugs is the best answer since those drugs can have worse
effects on the body. We shouldn't fall for the bullsh*t doctorly terms like
"aggressive management." I think it's better to let nature do it's work and
humanely intervene in cases of severe trauma and/or abnormality.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) You obviously haven't read the rest of the thread, where I state that choosing to BECOME pregnant isn't really the issue anyways. Choosing to STAY pregnant is (and I think that choice is solely up to the woman). (...) Sure, give them the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| Dan: I know you hate it when I quote you out of context but I was just wondering, can you elaborate more on whether a person has a "right to reproduce"? That is, do people have the right to have kids no matter what, or are there preconditions that (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Yes, yes, and no. This should really be in a separate thread, but... Women usually CHOOSE to get pregnant. I don't think they should get PAID time off for a medical condition they CHOSE to have. I also don't think parents should get paid Flex (...) (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
|
|
|
|
