To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11266
11265  |  11267
Subject: 
Re: Is this sexism?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 03:40:32 GMT
Viewed: 
553 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR