Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

What I never really get about these kind of laws is, why does no kid just organize a massive street party in front of the local governmental building? They can't arrest everyone. I mean, here there was a massive pro-pot protest at the legislature building with people smoking pot illegally, and while there were police officers there they weren't arresting people, only making sure that nothing went out of hand.

Who says they wouldn't be able to arrest anyone? They might well grab as many as they could at random, and use riot equipment on the rest

[RedKing]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I was "lucky" enough to already be laid off when our daughter was born, and then in grad school so I was home with her (minus class time) for the first two and half years. With our son, I was working again. My wife had a couple of months' leave, but that included the prenatal doctor visits, which add up. I think she was home for maybe 1.5 to 2 months. Then it was off to daycare with him. Which, if you don't want to stick them in a place where they're crammed in with a bunch of other babies and barely looked after, costs a metric fuckton of money. As it was, he was only going three days a week, and I've been working weekends ever since so that I could be off for two days a week. If I hadn't been able to do that, the finances were such that it would actually be cheaper for one of us to quit our jobs and stay home full-time.

Europe has it right when it comes to providing better child-care options. Good, affordable child care benefits all of society, IMHO. People are able to work more, save more money, and it creates jobs in the child-care industry.

[Kay12]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I'd agree otherwise, but... such a leave may be a big issue for corporate employers. While my sympathy is on the families' side... I'm afraid such long maternity/paternity leaves would pressure corporations into not hiring soon-to-be mothers/fathers.

[Nadaka]

I dont feel that a man deserves the same deal here as women - after all pregancy, birth and motherhood has a much bigger effect on thier life than for a man... but there has to be a much better deal than what I was offered.

While I give you the first two, pregnancy and birth (Since those doesn't really apply to men), I'm gonna have to see some sort of evidence for the third one there. I mean, the effect on both parents is not only pretty major, but pretty dependent on circumstance as well, so its a bit of an over generalization at the lest.

My partner and I made the decision that she would quit work and raise our children until they reach full time school age.

And this is the issue - Maternity leave is, simply, extremely sexist - in situations where the women is more successful than the man, makes more money, etc and so on, she is STILL expected to and pressured by society to put here career on hold for a year (or even quit completely) to raise the child.

I gotta raise my hand here. Men and Women are not identical in regards to dealing with birth. This is probably one of the few places where I am still "conservative".

A new mother needs to heal from the stress and physical trauma of pregnancy and birth. The only source of fresh human milk is a new mother. Baby formula isn't as healthy or natural. Pumps and refrigeration can allow it to be stored and fed by the father, but I believe that that reduces some of the value both nutritionally and in bonding.

Those two things alone mean that new mothers NEED maternity leave. With the FMLA, fathers are entitled to medical leave for the birth of their child just as much as women are. The problem isn't that women are expected to take a leave for childbirth, it is convincing fathers that they should do so as well. Having children is one of the most important and rewarding things a person (both men and women) can do, and a woman's role in that is not something that a man can simply step in and do from a purely biological standpoint.

After that? I really don't see you assumption that the woman is expected to give up her career as being that prevalent. I am fairly certain that most people would make the decision based on who earns the most, either choosing the high earner to keep working, or for both of them to work and hire someone to care for the child.

[GlyphGryph]

The government pays for it, not the employer. I guess I meant parental leave and not maternity leave too, since the benefit period can be split between the parents to a large extent.
Employers quietly avoiding hiring women because of the risk of a lengthy absence does happen (even if it's illegal). It depends a lot on the industry sector though.

The way it works in Norway is not the way it works in most countries. They do have this tendency to get stuff like this right more often than other countries do. Sweden, for example, requires the company to pay for maternity leave (although at a reduced rate and with additional support from the government) Of course, they also force distribution of the time across both parents if both parents are available as well, which seems like a good idea.

[Virex]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I'd agree otherwise, but... such a leave may be a big issue for corporate employers. While my sympathy is on the families' side... I'm afraid such long maternity/paternity leaves would pressure corporations into not hiring soon-to-be mothers/fathers.

That can be fixed. Force them to hire at least 45% women and require them to hire any pregnant women that applies, no copping out or the CEO gets jail time.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I'd agree otherwise, but... such a leave may be a big issue for corporate employers. While my sympathy is on the families' side... I'm afraid such long maternity/paternity leaves would pressure corporations into not hiring soon-to-be mothers/fathers.

That can be fixed. Force them to hire at least 45% women and require them to hire any pregnant women that applies, no copping out or the CEO gets jail time.

So even if there are men and women who are better suited to the job they should be passed over for the sake of keeping up the diversity index?

[Darvi]

Pretty much.

Joking aside, rather than dismissing any other candidates they should just hire anybody who's competent regardless of such factors.

[Virex]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I'd agree otherwise, but... such a leave may be a big issue for corporate employers. While my sympathy is on the families' side... I'm afraid such long maternity/paternity leaves would pressure corporations into not hiring soon-to-be mothers/fathers.

That can be fixed. Force them to hire at least 45% women and require them to hire any pregnant women that applies, no copping out or the CEO gets jail time.

So even if there are men and women who are better suited to the job they should be passed over for the sake of keeping up the diversity index?

Of course. "Better suited" is entirely subjected and according to the pigs that currently run the qualification process, a white male is always better suited than any other applicant. I would dare say that quota would make for a better work force because people are forced to think about who's qualified instead of auto-stamping the white guy or the guy with the nicest face/best connections/went to the same school as the CEO.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

Yeah, instead they should auto stamp pregnant women. That's gonna solve all the worlds problems.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can't help but notice you make no mention of new fathers getting leave, Virex.

[Kay12]

On the issue of maternity/paternity leave, I'd love a year for either gender. Or even six months per person. Those first few months, you're a wreck anyways thanks to sleep deprivation and stress. And they're a crucial bonding period for both child and parents. It's also a financial issue.

I'd agree otherwise, but... such a leave may be a big issue for corporate employers. While my sympathy is on the families' side... I'm afraid such long maternity/paternity leaves would pressure corporations into not hiring soon-to-be mothers/fathers.

That can be fixed. Force them to hire at least 45% women and require them to hire any pregnant women that applies, no copping out or the CEO gets jail time.

Let's imagine I start a small business. I want to hire myself a secretary - she would have to be woman (otherwise it'd be 100% men and I'd be a horrid discriminator) and if the unfortunate incident where five pregnant women applied for the position, I'd be bankrupt in no time because I'd have to hire them all while I only had capacity for one. Furthermore, Virex, what on earth in that would be serious enough to warrant jail time? Your concept of justice baffles me.

Also, forcibly hiring women or men to ensure "gender equality" isn't going to work, especially with strict quotas. For example, a majority of bank and insurance workers here in Finland are women. In the department where I had a summer job a few years ago, there were about 4 women per each man. So they would've had to lay off about 60% of their employees or expand their department by quadrupling their amount of men - how exactly does either option help anyone?

[Realmfighter]

Yeah, instead they should auto stamp pregnant women. That's gonna solve all the worlds problems.

MoM, I do see his point. Assuming that there are an equal amount of qualified people in every group of people, then forcing a even distribution would mean a greater number of qualified people over all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, instead they should auto stamp pregnant women. That's gonna solve all the worlds problems.

MoM, I do see his point. Assuming that there are an equal amount of qualified people in every group of people, then forcing a even distribution would mean a greater number of qualified people over all.

But there aren't an equal amount of qualified people in every group, for every job. Pregnant women, for example, would be unfit for most jobs that require long-term physical activity due to the danger that would pose to mother, child, and coworkers. Hence, you can't force an even distribution and expect to increase qualification.

[Kay12]

Yeah, instead they should auto stamp pregnant women. That's gonna solve all the worlds problems.

MoM, I do see his point. Assuming that there are an equal amount of qualified people in every group of people, then forcing a even distribution would mean a greater number of qualified people over all.

Yeah, if you've got two equally competent applicants it makes sense to pick the underrepresented sex. However, Virex seems to want to go further on by ensuring fairly equal gender distribution regardless of qualifications - and I already mentioned how badly that could screw up banks and insurance companies here in Finland.