Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:13:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
500 times
|
| |
|
|
Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > 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?
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).
> 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.
Sure, give them the time off. Just give EVERYONE the time off.
> 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.
Funny thing - most businesses need to show a profit to keep in BUSINESS. Paying someone while they aren't working (for something that is
their CHOICE) impacts the bottom line. You either should give everyone that time off and factor it into the cost of business, or take the
realistic view that if someone works 9 months of a year, maybe they should get 9 months pay.
> 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?
What message do we send to the women who don't get pregnant, work the same job, and get the exact same pay, even though they work the full
year? "You don't deserve anything more for your extra work". That's the wrong message to send.
> 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.
That could be a separate thread.
> 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 have no problem whatsoever with maternity leave. As long as you give EVERYONE the chance to take 1/3/6 months off PTO. Otherwise, you're
punishing men (and women who don't get pregnant) by paying the same amount for vastly different amounts of work hours.
> > 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?"
What's so hard to understand about this? If you give someone paid Flex Time for spending Quality Time with their kids, and don't give PFT
to people without kids, you are punishing them (unless you pay them more for not getting PFT). Is that so hard to understand?
> 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?
What message do we send by rewarding people who have kids on the job, while punishing those who choose not to? That you're less than others
for not having kids?
> > > 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?
Sure. But if you don't apply the PTO/PFT to people not having kids, you are damaging loyalty and esteem for those who choose NOT to have
kids.
You're making it seem like it's bad to NOT have kids. Prove to me otherwise by your statements above.
> > 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?
No. I have no problem with responsible procreation (I do, however, think that people that spit out kids left and right need a stern talking
to).
Why should those that choose NOT to procreate be looked down on? Your stance seems to be that they should (prove otherwise by your
statements above).
> > 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.
You're not a woman - ask a woman who has bad PMS if she thinks it serves a positive purpose. In fact, ask her while she's under the effects
(I have had the misfortune of "discussing" it then - trust me, you DON'T want to). You'd better be prepared to run FAST.
> 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.
In some cases, yes, in some, no. If we COULD produce a Miracle Drug that got rid of the bad effects without harm (if you read the entire
thread, you'd see we ARE talking about a Miracle Drug, no side effects from the drug), are you saying we shouldn't? Seems so. Better not
say that to a group of women unless you have several fast exits planned out.
--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
| Netscape Communications Corp
| A division of AOL Time Warner
| iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Two questions-- 1st off, what if the woman can't abort? What if it's either against the law in her state/country, or it's against her religion or something? But that presupposes the *real* question at hand, that I think I posted elsewhere but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I understood your point perfectly the first time. My concern is the attitude about staying pregnant. I think if a woman has to face loss of pay and possible loss of her job if she chooses to have a child then our society has some serious moral (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
