The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:47 am UTC

Spuddly wrote:Don't get me wrong; I appreciate that you continue to spend cash on objectified women, because they are a great deal more attractive than empowered women. I'm just calling you guys on the hypocrisy of blaming producers when it's actually a problem of demand. No one is going to make something that isn't wanted.


Hm, what do you mean by the first sentence here? That you think that attempts to have empowered women tend to go too far in desexualizing them for your taste? Or do you mean that having women with fleshed out personalities and roles besides stereotypical love-interest/eye-candy is in itself less attractive in your eyes? Could you clarify that? Because to be honest, that statement sounds a little bit like you're just trying to provoke a hostile reaction.

As for the second point, what I was trying to convey is that when it comes to altering demand for a product, you still have to be purchasing something in the market to really have a voice (as Belial was pointing out.) Especially since people who have a problem with objectification are probably in the minority, a much bigger impact can be made by purchasing stuff that has the qualities you want, rather than boycotting stuff that does not. Also, because the majority of stuff (including extremely well-crafted stuff) does have issues with its depictions of women, one has to weigh the potential gains of passing it up against the loss of an otherwise well-made product. Passing something up entirely because of a flaw in one area is a recipe for missing out on a lot of good stuff. But expressing complaints about the one failing a good product has, while also purchasing stuff that is better in that area, may allow positive impact without sacrificing the good stuff.

It seems like you've been arguing from a rhetorical position to point out flaws in certain criticisms. I'm curious, what is your actual view when it comes to feminism and specifically criticisms concerning depictions of women in popular media. I mean aside from what you consider the hypocrisy of the people making the criticisms themselves, what do you think of the content of the criticisms?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:08 am UTC

He can't clarify anything. He's banned for trolling.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby michaelandjimi » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:52 am UTC

Yeah, I have a question for the feminist thread.

I was talking to a couple of people about feminism. One of them argued that it is more economically sound to hire a man over an equally-qualified women, because the chance of a man taking an extended period of time off of work due to being pregnant was zero, and for a women it was non-zero. She further mentioned that this would be especially crippling for small businesses - losing a trained member of staff during an extended period.

Does this rationale make sense, and if not, where is the mistake?

I mean, yes, it's sexist. Clearly. You're favouring one gender over another. But is it justified?
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby crzftx » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:15 am UTC

From what I've heard (in the last 5 seconds on Google), it seems as though you needn't offer payed maternity leave. If that is true, than it would seem sexist to offer maternity leave and then not hire women due to her possibly using an offered service.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby michaelandjimi » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:27 am UTC

Well, yeah. But still, if given the option between a person who is less likely to need leave and someone who is more likely, it makes sense for businesses to choose the former, assuming I'm not missing something. Especially if, say, you've only got four workers and can't afford to lose one for a few months.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby crzftx » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:36 am UTC

Hmm... I still don't like it.

Not hiring a woman because of one scenario involving a woman leaving her job is in poor taste, to me. Maybe professionally ask if your applicants have a strong potential to be leaving work (such as relocation, pregnancy, death, etc.). Besides, maybe her partner in crime is willing to stay home with the kid for a coupla' months [instead of her]. Paternity leave from his work?

A man could want to leave work to take care of a new child, and I think there should be no reason a woman should want that more. If that holds, then it is sexist (by me) to not hire a woman due to her uterus.

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Cryopyre » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:40 am UTC

On a philosophical note for this thread, do you think there's a point where desexualization ought to stop?
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby crzftx » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:55 am UTC

Cryopyre wrote:On a philosophical note for this thread, do you think there's a point where desexualization ought to stop?

I don't think so. If one wishes to become sterile to prevent future children, I don't think that's wrong. It's like putting on a permanent condom, right?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:57 am UTC

Could this concern actually manifest in hiring? From an accounting perspective women may make a marginally inferior hire on account of risk of childbirth, but accountants generally don't do the hiring. I suppose with a small business that did significant amounts of training for its employees such a concern could surface, but I don't think that's terribly common.

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby luketheduke » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:10 am UTC

Cryopyre wrote:On a philosophical note for this thread, do you think there's a point where desexualization ought to stop?

Do you mean a point / circumstances where we are allowed to base our decisions on an involved person's sex/gender?

I think there is plenty of those.
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:38 pm UTC

crzftx wrote: Maybe professionally ask if your applicants have a strong potential to be leaving work (such as relocation, pregnancy, death, etc.).


Not especially legal.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Kag » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:19 pm UTC

Asking or specifying why is too personal, but it is certainly legal to ask if they're likely to require extended leave.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby michaelandjimi » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:03 am UTC

By the way, I don't support the act. I feel like I don't have enough information to make a judgment yet.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Jebobek » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:26 pm UTC

I feel that the problem is that we HAVE this problem to consider. The issue stems from treating females different than males in the first place. If businesses would all offer paternity leave equal to that of maternity leave, there would be no reason to choose one over the other. They should also offer adoption leave for singles and couples.

michaelandjimi wrote:Well, yeah. But still, if given the option between a person who is less likely to need leave and someone who is more likely, it makes sense for businesses to choose the former, assuming I'm not missing something. Especially if, say, you've only got four workers and can't afford to lose one for a few months.
With paternity leave in place, the employer would then hire based on age and living status they gather through interviewing that person. Laws regarding which questions they will be allowed to ask will still apply.
Image

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby sophyturtle » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:13 pm UTC

There was a time in the US that only single women could get jobs, because clearly a married woman would soon disappear to make babies and do those things. It made sense to people back then. Sort of like women and blacks not being able to vote or own property (women could own property, but only if their father was dead and they never married, tmk).
People come up with self fulfilling reasons. If only women are given time off to care for offspring than only women will take large amounts of time off to care for offspring. I know a couple where the female is taking hers first then the male is taking his time off (I believe Bank of America give him 2 months, but I may be mistaken). When we only allow for females to be primary caretakers they are going to be the majority of primary caretakers.
The idea that you would not hire a woman or pay her less because of this is absurd. Give paternity leave to males and dock their pay to match that of females. See how long the reasons stand up.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby luketheduke » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:30 pm UTC

Society also needs to change so the number of time men and women spend away from work caring for children actually becomes roughly equal.

Self-perpetuating structures, I think we had that already.
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:48 pm UTC

All of this completely glosses over the fact that women are the ones actually giving birth. And you can't just be like "take the rest of the day off and go squirt out a baby". Maternity leave isn't just about taking care of the baby, it's about letting the mother recover from a physically taxing experience that men inherently don't ever have to endure. It's not just "taking care of the baby" (which is what paternity leave is for), it's a lot like sick leave as well.

On a historical note, this is probably a big cause of gender inequality, because in the past, women gave birth way more often than they do in contemporary developed countries. We have certain pharmaceuticals to thank for that development, along with a degree of social liberalization.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Chai Kovsky » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

Part of it is the physical trauma to the mother of birth, but Sophy's anecdote of the birth mother, then the other partner taking leave still works in that instance, Philwelch. That makes the most sense to me.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Rinsaikeru » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:44 pm UTC

The physical trauma of childbirth is one thing. The lack of sleep, change in life/schedule and needs of a baby are another. Having parents both take leave for this fundamental change in family structure would be ideal both for the child and for the parents.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

Taking into account weather or not a woman might get pregnant when she is getting hired is not fair. Sure, women are the only ones getting pregnant, but there is no guarantee that this particular woman will. Women can't get testicular cancer, you know.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if a particular person is more likely to have to take off from work, all that matters is if they do take off from work. We can't predict the future, so it's not fair to discriminate based on gender.

Should we not hire black people because they are more likely to get whatever disease it is that black people get more often?

Anyway, my $0.02
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:24 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:All of this completely glosses over the fact that women are the ones actually giving birth. And you can't just be like "take the rest of the day off and go squirt out a baby". Maternity leave isn't just about taking care of the baby, it's about letting the mother recover from a physically taxing experience that men inherently don't ever have to endure. It's not just "taking care of the baby" (which is what paternity leave is for), it's a lot like sick leave as well.
I get 8 paid sick days a year, as well as various amounts of vacation time.

I understand that popping a baby out isn't an exact science. Outside of cesarean and labor induction, you aren't really able to point at a day on the calendar and say "This is the day I'm having the kid".

So you generalize and let your work know that during, say, the last two weeks of March and the first week of April you're going to be taking a week's vacation, and you aren't quite sure what day it'll be starting. You have the kid, take a week off, get back to normal, and off to work you go. If you need a bit more time.. hey, you've got sick days. If you medically need more time - what kind of shitty fucking workplace do you work for that'll fire your ass for a medical emergency?

So, yeah.. Woman takes a week off, Man takes Paternity leave/Other Woman takes Maternity leave. Why is this considered abnormal?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:44 am UTC

FlagPoleSitta wrote:What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if a particular person is more likely to have to take off from work, all that matters is if they do take off from work. We can't predict the future, so it's not fair to discriminate based on gender.


In general, you still try to mitigate risks you can't predict or foresee exactly. For instance, young men have higher auto insurance premiums than women of the same age because, statistically, they're more likely to get into accidents. That's not just social bias (well, it may be that social conditioning makes young men needlessly aggressive compared to young women), someone used advanced maths to wrote up an actuarial table based on millions of drivers that shows this correlation. This is the same reason health insurance is more expensive for smokers. In principle, you could probably write up a similar actuarial table showing the relative amounts of leave employees are likely to take based upon, again, gender. Just like with an insurance company, those statistics would indicate a known, quantitatively-greater risk of absenteeism among women of childbearing age.

It's an open question as to how that's supposed to affect hiring and compensation decisions. For that matter, it's an open question as to whether gender should even affect auto or health insurance rates.

Also, Talon, I have no idea what you're on about.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:00 am UTC

Philwelch wrote: Just like with an insurance company, those statistics would indicate a known, quantitatively-greater risk of absenteeism among women of childbearing age.

It's an open question as to how that's supposed to affect hiring and compensation decisions. For that matter, it's an open question as to whether gender should even affect auto or health insurance rates.



Hm, in economic tough times, I'm sure a lot of companies could get away with only hiring people who are willing to work 60 hours a week with no vacation or sick time (and filter people based on who would likely be able to meet this criteria), but it's generally considered a good idea to require companies to reasonably accommodate the average needs of employees. The problem is that "average needs" is based on the assumption of male-default workforce. If the accommodations where altered for everyone to also account for the effects of childbirth, it would possibly eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) the statistical differences in time-off for men and women, because every employee would have enough time off to deal with the issue, and most employees are likely to use all of the paid time off that they can.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:07 am UTC

So....you give unnecessary amounts of time off to single men and generous amounts of time off to men-partnered-with-women to balance out maternity leave.

Now you've reduced productivity further. You've also probably reduced people's salaries (since you get less actual work out of a single person you can't afford to pay them as much) and we still have massive gender inequality because while single men are spending their extra month off waterskiing and throwing wild parties, mothers are at home taking care of babies.

Or we could give women more time off than we give men, which creates a different inequality.

The point is, biology has dealt us an inequality and there's no good way to fix it.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:12 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:For instance, young men have higher auto insurance premiums than women of the same age because, statistically, they're more likely to get into accidents.
Huh. I'd always heard that Women are statistically likely to have more auto accidents, but men cause more damage. Ten dented fenders don't compare to two totaled cars.

All of this completely glosses over the fact that women are the ones actually giving birth. And you can't just be like "take the rest of the day off and go squirt out a baby". Maternity leave isn't just about taking care of the baby, it's about letting the mother recover from a physically taxing experience that men inherently don't ever have to endure. It's not just "taking care of the baby" (which is what paternity leave is for), it's a lot like sick leave as well.


Here's what I'm going on about. You're assuming that the woman HAS to take gobs of time off because she had a kid. I'm saying while every woman is different, outside of complications during the birth a woman can be back at work in a week, assuming there's someone at home to take care of the kid. Automatically putting that burden on the woman who had the kid, despite a spouse that could be shouldering the burden is completely fucked up, yet somehow considered normal.

Also: Mothers at home? Because fathers are too busy dicking around at their friend's wild parties?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Belial » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:15 am UTC

And also, why are only the single men getting to have the wild parties?

The childless and childfree women will also be having parties.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby luketheduke » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:15 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:So....you give unnecessary amounts of time off to single men


No you don't. It's called "Parental leave", not "leave we give to all our employees because contrary to intuition this drastically improves productivity" (yes, I am taking a stab at you).
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:22 am UTC

Silly luketheduke, burnout is a figment of your imagination!
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby libellule » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:23 am UTC

It's actually a prickly issue, despite all the extreme situations described here which involve partying and general merriment as a substitute to the grind of child-rearing and domestic non-bliss.

Being a child-free and career-driven person, I still try to be sensitive to the time pressures of the non-child-free. Not the non-career-driven (there are few of those in my job), but those who have demands on their time that are not career-related but are not frivolous or rejectable.

This means acting like a decent human being, not one who is up on her hobby-horse about the choices one makes, but one who is understanding and tolerant of others. This is not easy at times, because in general child-related issues bore me to tears, but it is part of the it-takes-a-village ethos that is necessary if we do not want to be reduced to selfish, I've-got-mine asswipes who fail to consider the needs of anybody whose desires fall outside those of their own.

So, if my colleagues (male or female) need time to tend to their children, that's just fine. If it's not children but ailing parents, health problems, spouse issues.... also fine. We just have to be considerate and giving, and if our time is required to make up for other people's obligations, we should just do it and be thankful that we don't have those obligations and hopeful that others will cover for us when and if we do.

tl;dr: Childbirth is just one facet of things-requiring-time-off-from-work. There are many others, planned and unplanned. Let's just accept that and not discriminate against people (male or female) for having a life.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:32 am UTC

luketheduke wrote:
Philwelch wrote:So....you give unnecessary amounts of time off to single men


No you don't. It's called "Parental leave", not "leave we give to all our employees because contrary to intuition this drastically improves productivity" (yes, I am taking a stab at you).


That's not what I got from what setzer777 suggested: have so many childbearing women in the workforce that we can average out to gobs of "generic leave" for everyone. Which is fine to a point, except as Talon pointed out, a single man (hell, even a single *father*) is going to take leave and come back refreshed. A single *mother* is going to take leave and come back exhausted from dealing with a one week old baby all week.

SecondTalon wrote:Here's what I'm going on about. You're assuming that the woman HAS to take gobs of time off because she had a kid. I'm saying while every woman is different, outside of complications during the birth a woman can be back at work in a week, assuming there's someone at home to take care of the kid. Automatically putting that burden on the woman who had the kid, despite a spouse that could be shouldering the burden is completely fucked up, yet somehow considered normal.


I'd rather hear a perspective on this from an actual mother, because you and I both know fuck all about how long it takes to recover from childbirth.

I had more to say, but seriously—I want to hear from an actual mother.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby libellule » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:37 am UTC

you really think a mother would spend her spare time posting on a stupid forum?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby doogly » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:44 am UTC

libellule wrote:you really think a mother would spend her spare time posting on a stupid forum?

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=35460
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:45 am UTC

libellule wrote:you really think a mother would spend her spare time posting on a stupid forum?


Not if she had a one week old baby, but I don't think she'd go back to work if she had paid leave not to, either.

The point is, I'm not taking anyone's arguments about "mothers only NEED one week of maternity leave!" seriously because they don't have the first idea what they're even talking about. And this time, I'm wise enough to step back and, instead of arguing the point, let someone who knows what they're talking about say something.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby libellule » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:52 am UTC

doogly wrote:
libellule wrote:you really think a mother would spend her spare time posting on a stupid forum?

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=35460

:oops:

This made me smile a lot. I guess I just can't imagine the professional mothers I know posting here. I only do it myself when I'm procrastinating or so worried about something I can't sleep or hideously jet-lagged. Anyhow, I stand corrected.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:16 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:That's not what I got from what setzer777 suggested: have so many childbearing women in the workforce that we can average out to gobs of "generic leave" for everyone. Which is fine to a point, except as Talon pointed out, a single man (hell, even a single *father*) is going to take leave and come back refreshed. A single *mother* is going to take leave and come back exhausted from dealing with a one week old baby all week.



Hmm....it wouldn't have to be totally generic, I was just thinking gender neutral and in such a way that men and women are roughly equally likely to take the time off. So generic parental leave might work. As you pointed out, that will still involve some inequality, with men getting more leave than they actually need while women get just enough. I think it's better to have that inequality than to have the economic inequality in how many women are hired and how much they are paid. If there's a better way to eliminate that inequality, I'll be behind it.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:02 pm UTC

One way would be to treat full time parenting as actual work, with the social expectation that your children would support you in your old age as the compensation. Which isn't a bad idea—after all, raising a child produces a human being, which is probably more productive than 90% of careers. Now that our society has outsourced both parenting and elder support, that set of informal social expectations probably isn't going to work.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:19 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:One way would be to treat full time parenting as actual work, with the social expectation that your children would support you in your old age as the compensation. Which isn't a bad idea—after all, raising a child produces a human being, which is probably more productive than 90% of careers. Now that our society has outsourced both parenting and elder support, that set of informal social expectations probably isn't going to work.


There's an issue with a job that doesn't pay you until your old age - most people need money right now. The other problem with that is that having it as a set of informal social expectations leaves a woman at the mercy of her husband and children - they still ultimately get to choose how much support she'll get, and what kind of strings will be attached to it. It also doesn't deal with the issue of single mothers.

I suppose one way to deal with it (hypothetical, I doubt it could ever catch on) would be to make spouses required by law to pay full-time parents a livable wage (perhaps on a sliding scale based on their own income). You could also make children financially indebted to their parents for time/costs of raising them.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby luketheduke » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:26 pm UTC

@Philwelch: You mean, rewarding it as an investment into the future? That's what child benefits try to do.

setzer, you ninjad me.
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby Philwelch » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:44 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:One way would be to treat full time parenting as actual work, with the social expectation that your children would support you in your old age as the compensation. Which isn't a bad idea—after all, raising a child produces a human being, which is probably more productive than 90% of careers. Now that our society has outsourced both parenting and elder support, that set of informal social expectations probably isn't going to work.


There's an issue with a job that doesn't pay you until your old age - most people need money right now.


Which is why the other parent would normally keep working.

setzer777 wrote:The other problem with that is that having it as a set of informal social expectations leaves a woman at the mercy of her husband and children - they still ultimately get to choose how much support she'll get, and what kind of strings will be attached to it.


You're the one introducing gender into the question. The mother very well may still be working while the father stays home.

setzer777 wrote:I suppose one way to deal with it (hypothetical, I doubt it could ever catch on) would be to make spouses required by law to pay full-time parents a livable wage (perhaps on a sliding scale based on their own income).


That makes no sense when you consider that most married couples' living expenses are shared (mortgage/rent, insurance, groceries, and so forth). There's no point paying your husband just so he can chip in to pay the mortgage when you could just pay the mortgage. Many states' property laws state that anything one married person owns, their spouse also owns, and this has a similar effect.

Now, there are other arrangements: between extended family support (or support from older children) and more flexible work arrangements, you could probably have two working parents and still have the kids cared for full time.

luketheduke wrote:@Philwelch: You mean, rewarding it as an investment into the future? That's what child benefits try to do.


Child benefits in this country are usually a tax deduction intended to offset part of the costs of raising children. The US still has enough immigration that the government doesn't really need to pay people to have kids: the population isn't going to go down like in other countries that have reached ZPG.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: The radical idea that women are people

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:54 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
setzer777 wrote:The other problem with that is that having it as a set of informal social expectations leaves a woman at the mercy of her husband and children - they still ultimately get to choose how much support she'll get, and what kind of strings will be attached to it.


You're the one introducing gender into the question. The mother very well may still be working while the father stays home.


In which case the father will be at the mercy of the mother and his children for the "payment" for his job. And unlike real employers, there are not the same protections in place for "employees". Not to mention the person being out of work for so long will make it more difficult to find a job if they are "fired" (their spouse leaves them). One of the major problems with having one stay-at-home parent is that it creates a power difference between them and the employed spouse, and especially since the nature of the relationship is highly dependent on their emotions towards each other (more so than a real employer), it puts them in a more precarious position than their employed spouse.

The combination of the health issues of pregnancy and the social pressure in place (and possibly other factors) currently results in women being more likely to take work absences and therefore result in employers hiring women less and paying them less. Your solution of socially treating parenting as a full-time job (because of the limitations listed) would not address the economic inequality and power-differential resulting from this.

You were also saying that giving both parents sufficient parental leave would reduce productivity more than is ideal. If that is a concern one could just give women more parental leave for that reason. It is an inequality made to try to counteract biological inequality, but so are laws that require reasonable accommodation for the disabled, so there is precedent. The main practical problem is that it is difficult to prevent companies from weighing this possible accommodation against women when making hiring decisions.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests