Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:27:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
583 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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 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 issues to consider. In my opinion, it would be downright
evil to coerce a woman into abortion with the threat of losing her job or
losing months of valuable pay in a time of great need.
I don't see it as an issue of reward for her and punishment for others,
unless this is an issue of job or career satisfaction and people hate going
and want more time off and resent others for getting it. If that's their
motivation, they need to rethink their career and find something more
appealing to do. If it's a matter of a shorter work week for everyone, I say
good idea. But it seems that family is not as important as it used to be.
Family is the root of community and deserves reverence, in my opinion.
> > 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.
Why? I understand that you are approaching this from a general sense of
fairness and equity, but isn't pregnancy an issue that deserves flexibility
and understanding? There are rules to fairness, and exceptions to those
rules. I used to think otherwise but lately I'm seeing a different picture.
People's needs are different and a hard-line sometimes doesn't apply.
Sometimes giving grace is better but I realize there's reluctance to extend
it when people selfishly abuse it. Well, that's their honor and the abusers
will only get so far in life before "crying wolf" eventually catches up to them.
> > 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 and people ARE your business. Employees ARE the company. Maybe this is
an issue of the merit of an employee and worker's rights. If you bust your
ass day in and day out for a company, you deserve some grace when it comes
to family matters. To take a hard line only creates a more cynical,
inflexible culture. America doesn't need that, in my opinion.
> 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.
I think if they enjoy their job this is a non-issue. And what extra work do
you mean? Aren't they still doing the work they're expected to do and still
enjoying whatever benefits and days off that are normally given to
full-time, salaried employee? Shouldn't the additional days off be need based?
> > 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.
Good idea.
> 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.
But I don't see any qualifiable "punishment" for people working their
regular job to begin with and doing the work they're contracted for.
However, if the long absence of a coworker creates extra work for the
others, then of course they should be compensated with more money and/or
some extra days off. That seems fair for everyone, in my opinion. Perhaps
that's the "punishment" you were referring to? Or maybe this is more of an
issue of hating one's job and wanting as much time away from it as possible?
By the way, I think 2 months off seems the most reasonable standard for
maternity leave. What do you think?
> 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?
Mind your tone, Tom. There's no need to be rude here, I haven't been obtuse
toward you. I understand things very, very well and don't appreciate your
condecending tone. Just once, try having a simple on-line dialogue with me
without the petulent attitude. Please try to keep this discussion from
wandering away from the points at hand.
There's a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. I
understand your view CLEARLY, but I just don't agree that it is punishment.
I do understand that people without kids do have a life and want to spend
time with their friends and family so perhaps there's a bigger issue of
reducing the work week? That could be another thread as well.
> 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 see what you are saying but just because you see it as punishment doesn't
mean everyone else does or should. I am wondering if job and career
satisfaction may have something to do with it. Just curious, are you happy
with your job?
> > 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.
Okay, then this could be more of an issue of merit pay and companies being
responsive to rewarding employees with outstanding performance (not for just
showing up). If that's the case, it seems like a decent idea and I'm very
much for it. However, I worry about the fairness, or lack thereof, in
recognizing your hard workers because there's always favoritism and
brown-nosing. And what if the supervisor is not observant or a real jerk or
feels threatened by confident, "over-achievers"? I've seen a lot of that. If
you work hard and do a great job, there's always someone who resents you for
it because it makes them "look bad." It's a double whammy if this happens to
be your boss.
> > 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).
I see what you're saying, I also don't think it's responsible to have more
kids than you can properly support as parents. It's seems like it's a bigger
problem of lack of education and guidance on the part of parents and elders.
Kind of a vicious cycle I think.
> 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).
Maybe you are inferring too much, Tom, unless you are suggesting looking up
to those whose who RESPONSIBLY chose parenthood equates looking down on
those who don't have kids at all. So I'll just say here that Dan Jassim
doesn't look down on people who don't procreate-- this statement is my proof.
> 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.
Well, I am married and we've been together for 11 years and I know it gets
uncomfortable for my wife. But you and I know both know the facts of biology
and how that irritability serves the positive purpose of helping a woman
avoid getting pregnant toward the end of her cycle (unless there are guys
out there who really enjoy a cranky lover). There are so many risks to
having an abnormal baby from a stale egg so nature says "back off."
But here's something interesting: My wife used to use those medications many
years ago but, after learning about the harm these medication do to other
bodily organs, she chose to avoid them outright. By doing so, she helped
build a natural tolerance to the discomfort. It seems that good health
(physical and psychological), fitness and diet may have something to do with
mananging PMS better.
> 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.
I think it's wishful thinking to believe in the idea of a "miracle drug."
There are always side effects which reveal themselves immediately or over
time. We are a pill popping culture. I think we are too quick to treat
nearly everything with drugs. That has become the prevailing paradigm: Got a
headache, take a pill. Got no energy, take a pill. Got bad farts, take a
pill. Can't get it up, take a pill.
So of course it seems rational to find a "miracle drug" to treat our
so-called "ailments" (and this is the same thread where pregnancy was
considered an ailment). The mere fact that we have defined and labled
something as PMS immediately creates the false perception that it is an
unnatural, unnecessary condition that requires treatment with drugs. We
forget that nature has built these things our bodies for good reason, and
built in ways to manage it.
Provided that we are healthy, we have more than adequete means of naturally
managing such difficulties, and this includes the foods we eat (chicken
soup, orange juice, etc.). But we take so many drugs for this and that and
we end up losing touch with our bodies. The fact is that we can naturally
heal ourselves over lots of things for which we take pills-- pills that
cause our body's natural mechanisms to shut down and increase dependence on
the man-made chemical. That's my perspective so perhaps that reveals a
little more of what I mean by flexibility and understanding with women's needs.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Extremely, or I wouldn't be there. I could take a higher paying job elsewhere, but I LIKE my job, and that is very important to me. You don't find very many people that stick in Tech Support for 5 years before burning out. Whether you like (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
