Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Jun 2001 07:17:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
594 times
|
| |
|
|
Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > 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?
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 the job or not, I can't see how you CAN'T see it as punishment to give PFT to parents and not to single people. I just can't
understandd it - try to convince me that it's not a punishement to deny a benefit to others.
> > > 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.
That I agree with. I generally avoid drugs, but it's hard to sometimes, knowing that how crappy I feel can be fixed with a few Motrin.
> 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
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Wow those are long lines. OK, Tom. I personally have been in jobs that I hated and jobs that I liked. This may be quibbling with words but I don't see benefits or the lack of them as "punishment". Punishment is typically something meted out to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I guess we just have different views on this subject, that's all. But I don't think "punishment" is the appropriate word here and neither is "reward." Either way, so long as we agree that there are differing views to this subject then it makes (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
