Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 03:40:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1471 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Two questions-- 1st off, what if the woman can't abort? What if it's either
> against the law in her state/country
Still her choice - travel to a different state (I'm mainly talking the US here,
obviously).
> , or it's against her religion or something?
STILL HER CHOICE - she chose that religion, or chooses to stay in it.
> But that presupposes the *real* question at hand, that I think I posted
> elsewhere but didn't get a response to. What does the choice have to do with
> it? Suppose for a minute that Ms. Jones got pregnant and had kids. Now
> suppose that Ms. Smith DIDN'T get pregnant, but her sister did. And placed
> Ms. Smith as the childrens' legal guardian, and then died. Now both Ms.
> Jones and Ms. Smith have children, and you'd be hard pressed to argue that
> Ms. Smith had a choice in the matter, although I suppose you could argue
> such. What does that have to do with the issue at hand-- whether or not they
> should have relief/extra perks from work thanks to their increased burden in
> their home life? Do they deserve *more* (as you've implied) when they
> *didn't* choose to have that burden? Or is whether they chose an issue at all?
When have I said they deserve more for not having kids? I'm for equality - equal
pay for equal work (let's ignore the case where someone does "8 hours of work" in 6
hours, as businesses usually tend to, except possibly at salary review time).
If you want to take time off to spend time with your kids (or SO, friends,
whatever), that's fine. I just don't think businesses should give PTO/PFT to people
JUST for kids, and deny it to others taking it off for other reasons (show me a
company that gives PFT so you can kick back with some friends at the beach, spending
Quality Time with them - I might want to work for them, because that would be one
rare company).
Why does everyone seem to have such a hard time understanding this simple point?
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) You didn't. I didn't say you did. However. You keep stating what seems to be an exception clause that it has to do with choice, when in fact, I think you don't mean that: "they CHOSE to have kids, and rewarding them for it/punishing others for (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
