Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 06:34:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
538 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> When have I said they deserve more for not having kids?
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 NOT
having kids just isn't right."
By specifying that they chose to have kids, you imply that this is the case
*ONLY* for those who have chosen to have children, and that somehow, those
who didn't choose such are somehow exempt. You never say what happens if
they *don't* choose. And I don't think you're saying that it *is* different.
But then again, I don't know why you brought up choice to begin with. If it
*is* what you're saying (that there is a distinction), then you need to
clarify what happens (by your logic) when you have something that *does*
take up your work time and that you have *no* *choice* about (we're
exampling kids for this debate, but it could be something else for the sake
of argument).
> 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?
I don't. In fact, if you read my other postings, you'd see I'm also for what
you're talking about here-- in a perfect world. In a perfectly fair world,
we'd be paid equally and respective to our efforts.
But that's pretty easy. The question is, are you actually angry with your
employer to find out that they provide increased benefits to employees with
children? Or do you let it go? Or do you only persue/get angry about it when
it gets out of hand?
And as Larry and I mentioned (he mentioned it more directly) it's really up
to the employer. If all businesses paid the "perfectly fair" way that you
suggest (and I, in my theoretical world, suggest), and ONE company decided
to offer increased benefits for those with children, wouldn't people with
kids flock to that business? Wouldn't they have their pick of these people?
In the real world (alright, in the real *capitalist* world), businesses try
and offer a nice happy medium between being "perfectly fair" and "nice" so
as to both attract as many as they can, and repel as few as they can from
their business.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Still her choice - travel to a different state (I'm mainly talking the US here, obviously). (...) STILL HER CHOICE - she chose that religion, or chooses to stay in it. (...) When have I said they deserve more for not having kids? I'm for (...) (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
|
|
|
|
