NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, on this we just disagree, then. No employer should be FORCED to give the kind of leave you describe, in my opinion, though it would be nice if they did so.
Just to make it clear...the kind of leave I am talking about is this:

1) 52 weeks off, maximum
2) at least 18 weeks of notice before going on leave
3) a signed contract that ensures you will retain your position when you return, at the same rate of pay as before


Nothing says they can't lay you off later on, nothing says they have to pay you any sort of benefits, nothing says they have to increase your pay as though your time off was working time.

So what is the problem?

I don't think it's the government's business to regulate these things.
Ah...so this is a purely political viewpoint, rather than any specific issue with Mat leave itself?

That’s not what she was saying … she WAS saying that usually have trouble if the couples have differing views on gender rolls then each otherYou should work on your reading comprehension. She did not say that. That might be what she was thinking, but it's not what she said. She said precisely what I said she said. :cool:

Let's say that abortion was available. Would you still say, "Women CHOOSE to be pregnant, so any birth-related medical problems are THEIR problems?" Hey, worker *X* CHOOSES to drive, he should know that there is a high risk of a collision-related injury, so why cover him and not the pregnant woman?

If abortion were 100% legal, then any medical issues arrising from birth would be the responsibility of the woman who decided she wanted to carry to term. That doesn't mean she wouldn't deserve treatment, just that she made a choice and faces certain consequences. It's like if a snowboarder goes off the toughest slope and breaks her leg; she made a choice that carried certain risks, and now she faces one of the possible outcomes of that choice. We don't refuse to let her get a cast for the leg, nor do we insist she can't be given painkillers, nor do we tell her she deserves to suffer.

As for your car-driving analogy, the distinction is in the likelihood of the employee missing work as a result of the choice. An employee who chooses to drive does face a risk of injury that might lead to him missing work, just as an employee who leaves his house in the morning risks being hit by a bolt falling from a jet engine that just happened to be passing overhead at that very second. There is always risk, and we face it every time we take a breath.

However, if an employee chooses to carry a pregnancy to term then she is setting up a situation in which there is a 100% chance she will be "injured" and require leave. I don't care how tough she is, she's not going to pop out the kid and then be back at her desk bright an early the next morning, because childbirth is a bitch and half. She KNOWS, for certain, that she will need time off. The employee who drives to work knows that there is a chance he could get in a wreck, but there's a much better chance that he never will.


You don't know if you are going to have medical issues (other than clearly defined genetic ones) until you have a child. My mom had terrible complications...so did all my aunts. And yet my pregnancies were a breeze, and I needed very little recovery time. It's not something you can really predict.
This is true, but I don't see what your point is. If abortion is 100% legal then I don't think employers should be required to give any time off at all for women who choose to carry to term, so the extent of the medical difficulties wouldn't be relavent. If abortion is not 100% legal then I support forcing employers to give the same kind of consideration to birth-related "injury" as they would to any other kind of medical problem, and that includes taking into account inidividual complications that may arrise.

Ah...so this is a purely political viewpoint, rather than any specific issue with Mat leave itself?
It's more that I don't see why maternity leave should be considered "special."

. Nobody goes out looking to contract botulism.....

*cough* Botox *cough*
sorry, couldn't resist :D

So out of curiosity, I'm with you on the idea that pregnancy is a choice so why give time off. An accident is not planned, so time off is allowed. Where would voluntary surgery fall? Not just breast implants and tummy tucks, but things like hip and knee replacements? These are choices made, do these get time off?

And catching up on who has better orgasims: It's women who possess the only part of the human body designed for the sole purpose of sexual pleasure. All hail the clit. :)

Just to make it clear...the kind of leave I am talking about is this:

1) 52 weeks off, maximum
2) at least 18 weeks of notice before going on leave
3) a signed contract that ensures you will retain your position when you return, at the same rate of pay as before


Nothing says they can't lay you off later on, nothing says they have to pay you any sort of benefits, nothing says they have to increase your pay as though your time off was working time.

So what is the problem?
The "problem" is that I don't think the employer should be required to offer any of what you describe. I think they should be required to not fire a woman who must take medical leave for childbirth, but the rest is gravy. I think it would be really NICE of an employer to offer the things you describe, and I think they would profit from being generous in that manner, but I don't think any employer should be FORCED to do this. If a woman wants those benefits then she could seek out an employer who extends them.

This seems kind of random for a topic... but I'd actually have to disagree in part. I do think men and women are equal in terms of being human and deserving dignity. Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.
wow ur dumb the guy who started this said basically the exact same thing then u say u disagree but state what he stated

men and women should be given the same opportunities and stuff, but a woman should not get a job that a certain is more suited for just because she is a woman

they should be treated equal though they are not equal in all respects and certain people are equal with others and certain are not equal to others this is like generalizing between race execpt even larger

men and women are very different and among themselves they are very different you cannot categorize one as better or one as worse

*cough* Botox *cough*
sorry, couldn't resist :D

Hehe, I was hoping somebody would catch a little of the irony there...ten coolness points!

So out of curiosity, I'm with you on the idea that pregnancy is a choice so why give time off. An accident is not planned, so time off is allowed. Where would voluntary surgery fall? Not just breast implants and tummy tucks, but things like hip and knee replacements? These are choices made, do these get time off?

Things like cosmetic surgery (NOT reconstructive or necessary plastic surgeries) shouldn't be covered because they are pure choice. Things like hip and knee replacements can be very necessary, and thus I think medical leave should be extended.


And catching up on who has better orgasims: It's women who possess the only part of the human body designed for the sole purpose of sexual pleasure. All hail the clit. :)
The idea of penis envy is so clearly foolish when you look at the density and excitability of nerves in the male and female genetalia...who would any woman be envious of a shotgun, when she's got a semi-automatic?

Men and women are naturally unequal.

Men are better in:
Most forms of math (especially algebra (Should be spelt with a j since it was named after the inventor, aljebar (Probably spelt wrong but has a j)))
Three dimensional puzzles
Reading small print
Upper body strength
others

Women are better in:
Quick counting (If you don't know, it is like when I hold up 4 fingers you don't have to count all of them to know that there are 4)
Multi tasking
Lower body strength
Hearing lower sounds (I forgot what it is called, I think the term is decibals)
others

Men should get Maternity leave or no one should, because that would be sexist, and in USA that is illegal and people could get sued.

If needed to be known, I got this off the discovery channel)

If abortion were 100% legal, then any medical issues arrising from birth would be the responsibility of the woman who decided she wanted to carry to term.
I don't get you here...medical leave would be required AFTER birth...how would abortion fit into this? If you suddenly realise you might have to take a few days off (and yes, it is possible for MANY women to come back a mere couple of days after...especially if C-sections stop being so 'conveniently' popular) you should just abort? I don't see the correlation.

Before regulation, very few businesses granted any sort of leave. Obviously, having no regulation didn't work. Why do you think it would work in the future?

It's more that I don't see why maternity leave should be considered "special."
Huh...maybe because, unlike breaking an arm, you are bringing a life into existence? Perhaps because birth IS special, and that we as a society should take at least some small part of the responsibility for new lives? Or barring that, there is no other leave that you can adequately compare to maternity leave?

The "problem" is that I don't think the employer should be required to offer any of what you describe. I think they should be required to not fire a woman who must take medical leave for childbirth, but the rest is gravy. I think it would be really NICE of an employer to offer the things you describe, and I think they would profit from being generous in that manner, but I don't think any employer should be FORCED to do this. If a woman wants those benefits then she could seek out an employer who extends them.
in an ideal world perhaps, were there were enough employers like that...either this, or the more likely limited scenario, with women unable to have children because they would lose their jobs...

...I guess if you're okay with that, you'll be increasing immigration to make up for the decline in the birth rate? :D

If parents cannot provide a sufficient minimum level of support for their children then the children should be taken away and given to a family that can provide for them. Otherwise, it's not the government's business (or yours, or mine) if the parents make some bad choices that decrease their childrens' quality of life. If the children are true victims then they should be removed from the unsafe home, but if the parents are simply making choices that handicap their kids' futures then that's up to them...parents make such choices all the time.


I agree that it might benefit society to do this, and that corporations probably won't do so (unless it suddenly becomes profitable for them), but I don't see how that leaves only the government. I see the private citizens as the natural source for such aid.

The main reason I see the government as the best organization for taking care of this type of problem is that the government has the physical force to enforce measures like this. As it stands, a charity can not, say, take a child away from its parents, nor would I like to give them that ability. Also, if the cost were taken out of taxes, the government would not have to waste money on marketing and eliciting donations the way a charity would.





I think it would benefit society far more if individuals started taking responsibility instead of asking the government to throw money at the problems. In this case, that means both the parents who are dropping the ball, and the well-minded individuals (like yourself) who think something needs to be done.


I get the impression that you think that people should be left to suffer for their mistakes (that part I don't necessarily disagree with), but you also seem to be implying that, through this suffering, they should be able figure out what they have done wrong. I don't think that the mistake of having children they can not appropriately parent will be readily apparent to people once they have made it, because our culture (and the primary cultures from which many poor immigrants hail) encourages everyone to breed no matter what their means and maturity level. People spend their entire lives being told to have and raise children, and have bodies that are constantly urging them to do so . . . I'm not all that shocked when people start pumping out kids that they can't parent, and I don't think it's likely that they will pinpoint having children as the problem, since they have been encouraged to do so their entire lives. They will instead identify something else as the problem, such as "I don't get paid enough" or "my marriage is bad"

Once people have a baby, they have already made the mistake. I think we should give them some more warning so they don't make the mistake in the first place, instead of encouraging them to make the mistake, and then letting them hang for what we, as a society, told them was the right thing to do.

My thoughts have come out a bit more muddled than I hoped, but I presently lack the inspiration to present them more clearly. I hope I have been able to get across my core point, which is mainly that I feel that there is a hole in your logic because you unfairly discount the influence of socialization in our present day society. I also acknowledge that this may not be a logical hole, but simply that we are disconnecting on what we are talking about: you may be talking about your utopian society (in which people are socialized more constructively and in which all of the necessary information is available to people making the choice) while I am talking about a society that more closely resembles our present one.

I think that the same rules that nobel prize winning economists Khaneman and Tversky applied to economics (asserting that consumers are not, as previously theorized, fully informed rational actors in the economy) apply here; and it seems as though you are assuming that all people are fully informed rational actors.


After reading your comments, Bottle, I am now more inclined to propose a different governmental system from the one I proposed earlier, one that would more accurately protect children from bad parents while still forcing the parents themselves to bear the responsibility: take the children away to be reared by good parents eager to adopt while also forcing the genetic parents to pay child support. The details, for instance what constitutes bad parenting and how big the payments should be, would still have to be decided, but let's assume for a moment that you do find them satisfactory (if it is possible to assume that) just for the sake of argument. What do you think of such a system?

I also don't think such a system is the optimal solution, but instead a stopgap in our currently flawed society. I would much rather have people be socialized and educated to make better decisions, instead of being pressured to make bad ones and then told that they've done the right thing. In that case, such government intervention would not be necessary, and I would feel you were justified in your condemnation of people who make those types of mistakes.

I think that men whose bosoms could fit into a B-cup should have to cover up in public… even if it is hot enough to go shirtless…

Has someone else covered this topic? I didn’t bother to look.

Huh...maybe because, unlike breaking an arm, you are bringing a life into existence? Perhaps because birth IS special, and that we as a society should take at least some small part of the responsibility for new lives? Or barring that, there is no other leave that you can adequately compare to maternity leave?
Giving birth may be special, but it's still (somewhat) a choice. Climbing Mount Everest would be far more special to me than having a child, but I'm not about to insist the government guarantee I be given leave so I can choose to have that special experience. Just because some people feel that giving birth is the most special experience in their lives doesn't mean I share their priorities, nor does it mean that they have the right to demand special treatment. I also don't believe "society" has the obligation you describe; other people's children are NOT my responsibility, nor are they the responsibility of their parents' employers.

If abortion were 100% legal, then I could adequately compare maternity leave to any other leave taken by choice. If an employee chooses to undertake an experience that they KNOW will require leave time then that's their decision, but they shouldn't demand that employers foot the bill.

other people's children are NOT my responsibility, nor are they the responsibility of their parents' employers

Hmmm...after reading that, and these last quotes from Bottle in HeadScratchie's post, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread altogether. My beliefs on the subject are too violently opposed, and other than a fun romp, I don't think a debate is going to change our minds on this. So, as you suggested, we'll have to agree to disagree. Wait, I mean, agree to DISAGREE. Big time.

Have a great night, folks!

in an ideal world perhaps, were there were enough employers like that...either this, or the more likely limited scenario, with women unable to have children because they would lose their jobs...

You make women seem pretty incompetant. I am barely into my 20s and I already have a job where my employer would willingly choose to give me maternity leave if I asked for it. And I'm not especially talented or intelligent. I don't see any reason why women wouldn't be able to make themselves valued to employers, nor any reason why all employers would refuse to grant paternal leave. If some women are forced to limit their family size or put off having babies until they are more established in their careers then what's the problem with that? Encouraging women to be more responsible about childbearing sounds like a good plan to me.


...I guess if you're okay with that, you'll be increasing immigration to make up for the decline in the birth rate? :D
Huh? I don't really have any particular feelings about imigration, though I do believe that declining birth rates would be wonderful. The stable carrying capacity of human life for planet Earth is 2.5 billion, assuming that we want to be able to theoretically provide a European standard of living for each human.

If an employee chooses to undertake an experience that they KNOW will require leave time then that's their decision, but they shouldn't demand that employers foot the bill.
Yikes...just one more thing...

What bill are you talking about? No employer is required to pay out benefits...

...I guess if you're okay with that, you'll be increasing immigration to make up for the decline in the birth rate? :D

You're assuming that retaining our current population/having a larger population would be a good thing. I, for one, am in favor of the population actually getting smaller.

They're not equal, women are better. *coming from a guy*

This guy's gotta agree with you too.

Just don't ever tell one that they are. They might just figure out that they are and then gloat about it. :-D

I wouldn't say equal, I would say different.

"Women are not men's equals in anything except responsibility. We are not their inferiors either, or even their superiors. We are quite simply a different race."
-Phyllis McGinley

Men are better in:
Most forms of math (especially algebra (Should be spelt with a j since it was named after the inventor, aljebar (Probably spelt wrong but has a j)))
Three dimensional puzzles
Reading small print
Upper body strength
others

Women are better in:
Quick counting (If you don't know, it is like when I hold up 4 fingers you don't have to count all of them to know that there are 4)
Multi tasking
Lower body strength
Hearing lower sounds (I forgot what it is called, I think the term is decibals)
others
Those are huge generalizations. I bet I could kick 90% of the men on here's asses at algebra, I've taken enough classes in it afterall, same would probably go with small print reading, I've got better than perfect vision. I know guys who have a lot mroe lower body strength.

Also, decibals is for intensity of sound, Hertz is frequency.

What exactly is your solution then? No mandated Maternity leave, so women are back to taking two weeks off to recovery (if they can swing that and actually keep their job), and pack their kids off immediately to daycare?Solution to what? If some woman I never met is forced to quit her job to give birth and take care of a newborn, it's not my problem to solve. The 'solution' enforced by the government won't necessarily work for her anyway.

Unemployed pregnant women rarely go out looking for jobs in order to get Mat leave because you have to work at a job for a certain amount of time to be eligible for Maternity leave and benefits in the first place, and rarely could you squeeze that time in unless you know THE DAY you conceive. (Had I had my first child even a day early, I would not have qualified for any Mat benefits....talk about not planning properly!)First, I never said "in order to get maternity leave". They might just be trying to earn some money before they pop, but the employer won't know that. And even if they won't qualify, that might not matter if the employer isn't intimately familiar with the law and just errs on the side of caution. Look, I'm sure it's pretty hard for pregnant women to get a job no matter what, but laws granting them entitlements (as in an entitlement to leave) can only make it worse. This is especially true if the laws are too voluminous for the employer to be familiar with them.

The only change I think needs to be made, would be to allow fathers to take the unused portion of Maternity leave if they were the one who was going to stay home. Both partners can take leave at the same time...but the leave is still only (in Canada) 52 weeks in total. Not each. So you could conceivably have mom and dad stay home for 20 weeks together (totalling 40 out of 52), but mom would be entitled to an extra 12 on top of that, which dad wouldn't.
Only 52 weeks? That's a whole year! Are you sure that's right?

You know, I can't really get involved in the debate about how such laws should break down. It doesn't really matter to me.

I'm starting to think I might not even support that much, when it comes to pregnancy. In other cases, like if an employee is in a car wreck and needs recovery time, I think it's fair to expect the employer to give them a reasonable period to get back to work before they fire the injured worker. Whether or not that leave should be with or without pay is a whole other mess, but I do think that employers should be forbidden to summarily dismiss somebody who misses work because they came down with botulism or something.AFAIK, there are no federal laws in the US mandating that employers give employees time off to recover from illness or injury. And I don't think there should be. While these things may well be beyond the employee's control, they're also beyond the employer's control. It's not the employer's responsibility to take care of you when you have an emergency. However, I can see some room for exception. Sometimes the employer does share blame for the illness or injury. In that case, it's a worker's compensation liability issue. Also, with employers providing health coverage, they sometimes dump employees to avoid the medical expenses. But, you don't want to get me started down that road.

Now, pregnancy is a bit different because it is something that an individual (usually) chooses to undertake. Nobody goes out looking to contract botulism, but maternity leave is sought by women who (almost always) have choosen to have a baby. The reason I still support leave for pregnancy is that women currently do not have absolute freedom of access to abortion. If they did, at any time and for any reason, then I would no longer support requiring employers to give medical leave for pregnancy because women who carried to term would be doing so completely by choice. Right now, women don't have complete freedom of choice, and thus I believe employers shouldn't have complete freedom of choice either.Abortion is legal. What's the problem?

Abortion is legal. What's the problem?
You misattributed that quote, just FYI...it was mine. The problem is that abortion is NOT 100% legal at all times and for all reasons. It is becoming more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion with each passing day, unfortunately, and as long as there are unjust restrictions on a woman's right to choose I believe there should be restrictions on an employer's right to choose what to do about pregnant employees. If nothing else, that should help motivate more employers to support abortion rights :).

AFAIK, there are no federal laws in the US mandating that employers give employees time off to recover from illness or injury. And I don't think there should be. While these things may well be beyond the employee's control, they're also beyond the employer's control. It's not the employer's responsibility to take care of you when you have an emergency. However, I can see some room for exception. Sometimes the employer does share blame for the illness or injury. In that case, it's a worker's compensation liability issue. Also, with employers providing health coverage, they sometimes dump employees to avoid the medical expenses. But, you don't want to get me started down that road.

(emphasis mine)

Point taken, and you've convinced me. Though I would add that employers should be required to clearly and honestly state their policy about medical leave during the hiring process, so that an employee knows exactly what to expect if they are injured. As long as everybody knows the deal from the outset I don't see any problem.

I don't get you here...medical leave would be required AFTER birth...how would abortion fit into this? If you suddenly realise you might have to take a few days off (and yes, it is possible for MANY women to come back a mere couple of days after...especially if C-sections stop being so 'conveniently' popular) you should just abort? I don't see the correlation.

Before regulation, very few businesses granted any sort of leave. Obviously, having no regulation didn't work. Why do you think it would work in the future?First, I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated. Second, so what? What exactly isn't working if employers don't grant maternity leave? If it works for them to do so, then that's what works. You're arbitrarily assigning more value to the needs of the employee than the needs of the employer. If you mandate that the employer meet the needs of the employee, you neglect the needs of the employer.

Both sides get to decide what they want to do. An employee might demand that the employer give her 3 months of maternity leave. Then, it's up to the employer to determine if that's worth doing so. He might turn around and say, "look, I really need you back within 6 weeks. I'm sorry, but if you can't do that, I'll have to train somebody else to take your place." Now it's up to the employee to determine if her continued employment is worth returning before she really wants to, or she might try and come up with a comprimise. Either they can meet each other's needs, or they can't.

First, I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated. Second, so what? What exactly isn't working if employers don't grant maternity leave? If it works for them to do so, then that's what works. You're arbitrarily assigning more value to the needs of the employee than the needs of the employer. If you mandate that the employer meet the needs of the employee, you neglect the needs of the employer.

Both sides get to decide what they want to do. An employee might demand that the employer give her 3 months of maternity leave. Then, it's up to the employer to determine if that's worth doing so. He might turn around and say, "look, I really need you back within 6 weeks. I'm sorry, but if you can't do that, I'll have to train somebody else to take your place." Now it's up to the employee to determine if her continued employment is worth returning before she really wants to, or she might try and come up with a comprimise. Either they can meet each other's needs, or they can't.
Indeed, well said.

in an ideal world perhaps, were there were enough employers like that...either this, or the more likely limited scenario, with women unable to have children because they would lose their jobs...

...I guess if you're okay with that, you'll be increasing immigration to make up for the decline in the birth rate? :DDecreasing the birth rate among women who can't afford to quit working seems like a positive thing to me.

The main reason I see the government as the best organization for taking care of this type of problem is that the government has the physical force to enforce measures like this. As it stands, a charity can not, say, take a child away from its parents, nor would I like to give them that ability. Also, if the cost were taken out of taxes, the government would not have to waste money on marketing and eliciting donations the way a charity would.The cost of collecting taxes is a lot more than 0.

You misattributed that quote, just FYI...it was mine. The problem is that abortion is NOT 100% legal at all times and for all reasons. It is becoming more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion with each passing day, unfortunately, and as long as there are unjust restrictions on a woman's right to choose I believe there should be restrictions on an employer's right to choose what to do about pregnant employees. If nothing else, that should help motivate more employers to support abortion rights :).The cause of women having babies isn't a lack of access to abortion. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Generally, it is not the employer's fault that A) the employee got pregnant or B) that the employee was unable to get an abortion.

The cause of women having babies isn't a lack of access to abortion. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Generally, it is not the employer's fault that A) the employee got pregnant or B) that the employee was unable to get an abortion.Pregnancy isn't 100% preventable. Also, there ARE cases in which an employer is responsible for a) the pregnancy or b) the employee's inability to get an abortion.

However, it's moot now, because you convinced me that the "risk" element I described before is irrelevant. So I agree that employers should not be required to provide any kind of maternity leave.

Pregnancy isn't 100% preventable.

Actually, barring one miraculous ;) incident, pregnancy is 100% preventable. There's an easy way to not get pregnant. Don't have sex.

Sex is an integral part of a healthy marriage, so it's a little unreasonable to expect that a married couple will abstain, but if they choose to do so, they won't get pregnant.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. While I don't think an employer should be required to pay for parental leave, I do think that employer should be required to allow each parent six months of leave to participate in the first few months of a child's life. Six months unpaid leave, during which all medical benefits continue (possibly at cost to the employee) and no retaliation can be taken against an employee. The employee is guaranteed that s/he will return to the same (or an equivalent) position at equal pay. Beyond that, parental leave benefits should be decided by the employer based on what s/he believes to be fair.

Actually, barring one miraculous ;) incident, pregnancy is 100% preventable. There's an easy way to not get pregnant. Don't have sex.

Tell that to rape victims.


Sex is an integral part of a healthy marriage, so it's a little unreasonable to expect that a married couple will abstain, but if they choose to do so, they won't get pregnant.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. While I don't think an employer should be required to pay for parental leave, I do think that employer should be required to allow each parent six months of leave to participate in the first few months of a child's life. Six months unpaid leave, during which all medical benefits continue (possibly at cost to the employee) and no retaliation can be taken against an employee. The employee is guaranteed that s/he will return to the same (or an equivalent) position at equal pay. Beyond that, parental leave benefits should be decided by the employer based on what s/he believes to be fair.
What people seem to be forgetting is that the GETTING pregnant isn't even the issue. It's the STAYING pregnant. Doesn't matter if a woman GETS pregnant for at least 7 months (except for very rare cases), it just matters if she reaches that final stage where she is medically mucked up by the process.

I don't see any reason why people should even try to 100% prevent pregnancy from occuring. That's a waste of time. However, unlike pregnancy, CHILDBIRTH actually is 100% preventable. That's the only important bit here.

Pregnancy isn't 100% preventable. Also, there ARE cases in which an employer is responsible for a) the pregnancy or b) the employee's inability to get an abortion.Well, I suppose that pregnancy by rape is not preventable by the victim, although [Off Topic]I feel compelled to use this oppurtunity to highly recomend to all potential rape victims to violently resist any rape attempt. It will increase your odds of survival and reduce your risk of preganacy.[/Off Topic] And the employee may well be responsible for the pregnancy of the employee, but that's quite a different scenario, and that's why I used the word 'generally'.

However, it's moot now, because you convinced me that the "risk" element I described before is irrelevant. So I agree that employers should not be required to provide any kind of maternity leave.Cool. :cool: You make me question if all this pointless arguing on the internet isn't actually pointless.

I love how in the title you spelt "aren't" wrong.


The Enlightened One, Gir

Well, I suppose that pregnancy by rape is not preventable by the victim, although [Off Topic]I feel compelled to use this oppurtunity to highly recomend to all potential rape victims to violently resist any rape attempt. It will increase your odds of survival and reduce your risk of preganacy.[/Off Topic] And the employee may well be responsible for the pregnancy of the employee, but that's quite a different scenario, and that's why I used the word 'generally'.

Indeed. Of course, this is why I emphasize that pregnancy is NOT 100% preventable, but childbirth is. Just because a woman becomes pregnant doesn't mean she needs to stay that way. If a woman chooses to have sex (even safe sex) and risk pregnancy then that's her business, and she should not be told that having a baby is a "consequence" of sex. Getting pregnant may be a consequence of sex, but having a baby isn't a necessary consequence of being pregnant.

Cool. :cool: You make me question if all this pointless arguing on the internet isn't actually pointless.
Well, I'm a rare breed. Not everybody can be this special.

I love how in the title you spelt "aren't" wrong.


The Enlightened One, Gir
Well, the house cleaning, cookie baking, baby rearing, and "aren't" spelling genes are all absent from the Y chromosome. Yet another example of how men and women arn't equal...

Tell that to rape victims.

I am absolutely not belittling the heartbreak that must be involved when a woman finds that she is pregnant following a rape, and I am 100% pro-choice. Certainly if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, that is well within her rights. She has the right to do it. Whether or not she should is a debate for another time and place.

However, it is extremely rare for a woman to become pregnant during a rape. The body chemistry involved in the "fight or flight" syndrome is very hostile to conception. Actually, I believe that it is hostile to implantation but that would be semantics. In any case, very, very few women find themselves pregnant as a result of rape. I can't imagine how that feels, nor will I even attempt to try. The sheer attempt is presumptuos and patronizing. That is a circumstance nobody which could not possibly be fathomed by anyone who has not experienced it.

In any case, the woman's choice about whether to complete her pregnancy is hers, regardless of how she got pregnant.

That still doesn't touch the core of this debate. The implication has been made that only people who intend to eternally quit their jobs should be parents. A) There should be no provision made by any employer to allow a mother to recover from birth. B) The employee's personal worth, which in American society is rooted in family is none of the employer's concern. C) Fathers should have no part in the care for their wives and newborn infants.

This is an extremely short-sighted belief. If only people who intended never to work again reproduced, we'd have very few people born and nearly all of their families would be on public assistance. I'm all for zero population growth, but I don't want the current generation of children to be the last, either.

******
As to whomever said that the US Government makes no demand that an employer allow a person leave to recover (or to care for a sick family member). I have four letters. FMLA.

Eek. I don't know why I'm doing this, but...

I feel that other people's children *are* my responsibility. So is their ability to access health care, their ability to use roads and public transport, schools and police services, be defended by the Defence Force, etc, etc.

I don't have any kids, nor have I taken any maternity leave, but I do take the train to work each day. Me declaring 'other people's kids aren't my responsibility - why should I pay for maternity leave?' is as bad as a mother of three saying we should demolish public transport and all drive cars, because she doesn't use the train, so why should she pay for it? Or that she's got herself a nice big shotgun and can defend herself, so why should she pay for policemen's salaries?

The point is that we live in a society, and we each have a responsibility to the others in that society, as they have a responsibility to us. Programs which support society (security of employment, healthy children) benefit all of us as a whole.

Maternity leave (I'm talking guarantee of return to work after 6-12 months, not paid, though that would be good) leads to secure employees who are happier in their work and more likely to be loyal to the company. Retraining new employees is terribly expensive, so the corporation would benefit.

However believing in the benevolence of corporate America is as questionable as believing that communists live in a happy little Utopia where everbody actually gives and gets according to their abilities and needs. Ie, sounds good, but doesn't happen in practice.

The idea of penis envy is so clearly foolish when you look at the density and excitability of nerves in the male and female genetalia...who would any woman be envious of a shotgun, when she's got a semi-automatic?

So if female genitalia are as much better as you say they are...maybe that makes up for you having to bear the children. ;)

Giving birth may be special, but it's still (somewhat) a choice. Climbing Mount Everest would be far more special to me than having a child, but I'm not about to insist the government guarantee I be given leave so I can choose to have that special experience. Just because some people feel that giving birth is the most special experience in their lives doesn't mean I share their priorities, nor does it mean that they have the right to demand special treatment. I also don't believe "society" has the obligation you describe; other people's children are NOT my responsibility, nor are they the responsibility of their parents' employers.

If abortion were 100% legal, then I could adequately compare maternity leave to any other leave taken by choice. If an employee chooses to undertake an experience that they KNOW will require leave time then that's their decision, but they shouldn't demand that employers foot the bill.


Something that I think is being missed here is the fact that, in order for our species to survive, at least some people have to choose to have a baby. Our species can survive without risking ski jumps or driving a car, but not without having babies. That not only makes it special, but also takes away some of the freedom to choose whether or not to have a baby.

(yes, I am aware that, theoretically, all people could choose not to have a child, and therefore the amount of choice involved is not completely eliminated)

There is a point where at least some people HAVE TO choose to have a baby.

If we want the human race to continue, other people's babies ARE our reponsibility in that we should make sure that enough of them are produced and sufficiently cared for (not that that is currently a problem).

This is not an argument for why the government should require maternity leave. It is an argument for why maternity leave should be provided by companies even if they are not explicitly forced to do so, because it is also an argument against your attempts to liken childbirth to other medical procedures or accidents.

It's not special simply because it is a special experience for the person having the baby; it is not just special on an individual level. It is special on a societal level because it serves a special purpose and thus should get special treatment.


On a partly unrelated note, by being against forcing companies to provide maternity leave, you are implicitly judging as acceptable the possibility that no one will ever get maternity leave. Are you ok with that possibility? Do you really think that the ability to bear and raise a child without losing their jobs and trainwrecking their careers and crippling themselves financially should only be given to the wealthy, those with no career ambitions (stay-at-home moms), and those few who are exemplary enough at their jobs to be considered that much of a "valued employee"?

I feel compelled to use this oppurtunity to highly recomend to all potential rape victims to violently resist any rape attempt. It will increase your odds of survival and reduce your risk of preganacy

Actually, studies compiled by the FBI show that , while resistance decreases the likelyhood of a sucessful rape, it increases the likelyhood of death or serious injury during the rape.

That still doesn't touch the core of this debate. The implication has been made that only people who intend to eternally quit their jobs should be parents. A) There should be no provision made by any employer to allow a mother to recover from birth. B) The employee's personal worth, which in American society is rooted in family is none of the employer's concern. C) Fathers should have no part in the care for their wives and newborn infants. You're wrong. Nobody in this thread, at least neither I nor Bottle, have suggested that employers should not offer maternity or paternity leave to their employees. We've only suggested that employers should not be compelled by law to do so. The fact that you and so many others can't tell the difference depresses me. Just because somebody should (or should not) do something, in your or my view, doesn't mean there should be a law mandating them to do so (or to not do so). I feel that way whether we're talking about maternity leave, seat-belt use, prostitution, abortion, drinking whiskey, smoking crack, or buying cars on Sunday. I don't think you should be a prostitute, but I don't support laws that prohibit you from doing so. If you're capable of making adult decisions, that's up to you. Similarly, it's up to an employer to determine whether or not he/she should offer maternity leave. It usually does make sense for employers to do so, but that's not always the case.

This is an extremely short-sighted belief. If only people who intended never to work again reproduced, we'd have very few people born and nearly all of their families would be on public assistance. I'm all for zero population growth, but I don't want the current generation of children to be the last, either.Are you suggesting that children will stop being born if employers aren't forced to offer matterinty/paternity leave? You don't actually believe that's a possibility do you?

So if female genitalia are as much better as you say they are...maybe that makes up for you having to bear the children. ;)
I don't know if I would say female parts are better than male parts. I believe the clitoris is the only organ in the human body that is designed exclusively for experiencing pleasure, and that it has been refined by evolution to do this job amazingly well, and that women should appreciate the wonderful gift nature has given them.

But boys can pee like fountains! Man, the penis looks like so much fun. Plus, it's easier to see (and thus to play around with). The only real downside to the penis is how exposed and vulnerable it is, and how sensitive the testicles are. I've said it many a time...it is a very good thing I was born female, because I am horrifyingly clumsy. I would be zipping myself into things and bumping my package into desk corners and all manner of self-mutilating accidents.

And, dude, I don't think any physical trait could make up for childbirth. I mean, wow, ouch. Like, WOW. Ouch. Not fun. I think the only thing that can really "make up" for childbirth is the product of the efforts :).

You're wrong. Nobody in this thread, at least neither I nor Bottle, have suggested that employers should not offer maternity or paternity leave to their employees. We've only suggested that employers should not be compelled by law to do so. The fact that you and so many others can't tell the difference depresses me. Just because somebody should (or should not) do something, in your or my view, doesn't mean there should be a law mandating them to do so (or to not do so). I feel that way whether we're talking about maternity leave, seat-belt use, prostitution, abortion, drinking whiskey, smoking crack, or buying cars on Sunday. I don't think you should be a prostitute, but I don't support laws that prohibit you from doing so. If you're capable of making adult decisions, that's up to you. Similarly, it's up to an employer to determine whether or not he/she should offer maternity leave. It usually does make sense for employers to do so, but that's not always the case.
Are you suggesting that children will stop being born if employers aren't forced to offer matterinty/paternity leave? You don't actually believe that's a possibility do you?
Quite.

As for the whole "humanity will die out if SOMEBODY doesn't have babies" point, I don't see the problem here. Dude, if we could stop people from making babies just by denying them government-mandated maternity leave, don't you think China would have hit on that solution a long time back? People were choosing to have babies long before employers were required to grant maternity leave. Also, if it is in "our" best interest to continue encouraging people to make babies, then there will obviously be some employers who choose to offer maternity leave. As BC pointed out, he and I aren't advocating that such leave be prohibited, or even that it should be in any way discouraged, just that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating such matters.

I heard something interesting about this. As to the compared mental facilities of men and women it seems that they do have the same average however there is more variance in men--more geniuses, more morons.

I heard something interesting about this. As to the compared mental facilities of men and women it seems that they do have the same average however there is more variance in men--more geniuses, more morons.
Interesting...if you have a source on that, I would like to check it out.

I know there have been some theories about how different hormonal balances influence cognition in the sexes. Though the traditional depiction is of women as more emotional, some research suggests that men actually experience more mood fluctuation and more unpredictable shifting of emotions. This doesn't necessarily equate to men expressing more emotion, since it is possible that men adjust to this increase in "emotional" activity and are able to regulate it differently. However, it is also possible that the increased fluctuation in emotion could be impacting male cognition...men whose brains can better regulate or adjust to their fluctuating emotional states could seem even more intelligent and capable than otherwise, while men who cannot do so would appear less intelligent and more irrational. Adding that sort of mood component might fit with the theory that there is more variation in male intelligence, as you described.

Of course, as far as I know none of this is solidly supported, so it's all conjecture at this point. I'm mostly just fooling about with theories :).

I feel compelled to use this oppurtunity to highly recomend to all potential rape victims to violently resist any rape attempt. It will increase your odds of survival and reduce your risk of preganacy


I feel compelled to reccomend all rapeists violently resist any rape attempt. It will decrease the odds of a real man finding you, tearing "IT" off and shoveing it up your ass

"If your nose offends thee, cut it off."

First, I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated. Second, so what? What exactly isn't working if employers don't grant maternity leave? If it works for them to do so, then that's what works. You're arbitrarily assigning more value to the needs of the employee than the needs of the employer. If you mandate that the employer meet the needs of the employee, you neglect the needs of the employer.

The government is only defending the rights of the employee. They are defending the rights of the child. They are trying to increase the child's access to its parents during the most formative time of its life.

By the way, you'll find that in most employment law, there is a bias one way or the other. Just because one law errs on the side of the employee does not mean all do.

I feel compelled to reccomend all rapeists violently resist any rape attempt. It will decrease the odds of a real man finding you, tearing "IT" off and shoveing it up your ass

"If your nose offends thee, cut it off."What the hell are you trying to say?

What the hell are you trying to say?

He's saying that avoiding rape is the responsibility of the rapist, unless of course they wish to have some relative the victim hunt them down and remove the instrument which offends (that would be the penis, if that's not clear enough).

He's saying that avoiding rape is the responsibility of the rapist, unless of course they wish to have some relative [of] the victim hunt them down and remove the instrument which offends (that would be the penis, if that's not clear enough).I really don't understand the need people have to make such comments. Of course, nobody's supposed be raping people. What's that got to do with what one should do should they find themselves the victim of a rape attempt? Perhaps I'm supposed to advise would-be rapists that they should rape instead of telling would-be victims what I think they should do?

Originally Posted by Bottle
The idea of penis envy is so clearly foolish when you look at the density and excitability of nerves in the male and female genetalia...who would any woman be envious of a shotgun, when she's got a semi-automatic?

I guess that depends on if your shotgun is a repeater or a single shot

Abortion is legal. What's the problem?
Please go back to post 275 and change the last quote. I did not say that, Bottle did.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9032712&postcount=275

First, I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated. .
And I doubt you can defend your implied assertion that they did.

Yikes...just one more thing...

What bill are you talking about? No employer is required to pay out benefits...
I'm still waiting for a response to this...

I really don't understand the need people have to make such comments. Of course, nobody's supposed be raping people. What's that got to do with what one should do should they find themselves the victim of a rape attempt? Perhaps I'm supposed to advise would-be rapists that they should rape instead of telling would-be victims what I think they should do?

I didn't say I agree with him/her. You asked what he/she meant and I explained what he/she meant. I think he/she took offense to the idea that women are somehow responsible for rape, which to be fair I didn't take your statement to mean.

I'm still waiting for a response to this...
Sorry, I must have missed that the first time around...

"Footing the bill" includes forcing an employer to keep a job open for an employee who chooses to take maternity leave, or forcing an employer to offer such leave for employees. Even if the employer is not required to pay ADDITIONAL benefits, there is still a cost to requiring that they grant paternal leave. You may believe that cost is outweighed by the gains (and in many cases I agree), but it's still a cost.

Quite.
As for the whole "humanity will die out if SOMEBODY doesn't have babies" point, I don't see the problem here. Dude, if we could stop people from making babies just by denying them government-mandated maternity leave, don't you think China would have hit on that solution a long time back? People were choosing to have babies long before employers were required to grant maternity leave.


I never meant to suggest that people would actually stop having babies totally if there were no maternity leave. That, as you noted, would be ridiculous. The "SOMEBODY" argument only presents a reason why pregnancy should not be considered identical to a car or ski accident, illness, or even elective plastic surgery.


Also, if it is in "our" best interest to continue encouraging people to make babies, then there will obviously be some employers who choose to offer maternity leave. As BC pointed out, he and I aren't advocating that such leave be prohibited, or even that it should be in any way discouraged, just that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating such matters.

My point was that maternity leave would only then be offered to the handful of exemplary employees that are good enough to, as you say, become valued enough by the company to be irreplacable and thus rate maternity leave. Corporations wouldn't do what was good for society (putting aside whether this is good for society or not for a moment) unless it effects their profits. In any situation where an employee is replacable, it is in the company's best interest monetarily to not provide maternity leave. People pretty much have to work unless they want to be hobos, so if companies decide en mass to not provide leave, a lot of people are just going to have to accept that. This means that without government-mandated allowance in some form for maternity leave, the only people who would be able to have babies without the complications of losing job/career progess/crucial income would be the extremely wealthy, the handful of irreplacables, and people with no career ambitions who were going to be stay-at-home parents anyway.

At this point, you can say that giving extra punishment to people who don't fall into those categories is fine by you, no matter how you feel morally about the issue, because you wish to remain consistent with a stance against government meddling in your life. That's fine.

I argue that bearing children is a special case (and should not be treated in the same way as other forms of medical leave) and is a biological near-imperitive that is adaptively hardwired into us. That means that it should be treated as a special case.

To me, that means that some form of at least minimal maternity leave (say, for the time around the actual birth) should at least be a guaranteed privilege, if not considered a right, because I'm one of those crazies who puts the happiness of people at least slightly ahead of the profits of corporations. All kidding aside, I can see how other rational people could disagree with that. Maybe I am interpreting the right to the "pursuit of happiness" too broadly. Though, the Founders did take care to change it to "happiness" instead of the original "pursuit of property" envisioned in the philosophy of Locke.

Edited because I messed up the quoting syntax.

He's saying that avoiding rape is the responsibility of the rapist, unless of course they wish to have some relative the victim hunt them down and remove the instrument which offends (that would be the penis, if that's not clear enough).
Thanx Jo, that sums it up nicely

Perhaps I'm supposed to advise would-be rapists that they should rape instead of telling would-be victims what I think they should do?

NO, the whole point is, there are better ways to deal with the pregnancy from rape issue than to blame the victim for not fighting hard enough. If that was not your intended message perhaps i missread.

Someone should start a poll on reduced scentences for voluntary castterration of convicted rapeists. There was a guy in prison i heard of who wanted the opperation because he thought it was the only way to stop himself from reoffending after his release.

I never meant to suggest that people would actually stop having babies totally if there were no maternity leave. That, as you noted, would be ridiculous. The "SOMEBODY" argument only presents a reason why pregnancy should not be considered identical to a car or ski accident, illness, or even elective plastic surgery.

I still don't see why. Yes, people need to make babies or humanity will cease to exist, but we won't die out if people stop getting plastic surgery...but what does this have to do with this discussion? Both giving birth and having plastic surgery are (at least in theory) choices that an individual can make. Regardless of how essential or nonessential they may be to the continued survival of the human race, they are still choices. The human race will also die out if nobody is producing foostuffs, but we don't require all employers to give time off during harvest seasons.


My point was that maternity leave would only then be offered to the handful of exemplary employees that are good enough to, as you say, become valued enough by the company to be irreplacable and thus rate maternity leave. Corporations wouldn't do what was good for society (putting aside whether this is good for society or not for a moment) unless it effects their profits.

Actually, many corporations would. There are already corporations and businesses that choose to take a hit by "doing the right thing" simply because that's what the owners and bosses want to do. It may not be as common as we'd like, but we shouldn't pretend it never happens...that would be an insult to all the people we should be praising! :)

Also, a random thought: perhaps we should be working to change society so that it is profitable to do the right thing?


In any situation where an employee is replacable, it is in the company's best interest monetarily to not provide maternity leave. People pretty much have to work unless they want to be hobos, so if companies decide en mass to not provide leave, a lot of people are just going to have to accept that.

Happily, the profit motive will probably prevent this. Drawing on my memory of selection biology, I can definitively tell you that such situations virtually never occur. Even if all companies would save money by jointly refusing to offer leave, ONE company could profit even more from being the only company that does offer leave (thus attracting superior employee for the same pay, producing better output, having much much much better PR, etc), and thus it will be in the best interests of a company to be the one that gives leave. There will be "betrayal in the ranks," if you will, as long as individual gain is the goal for these companies.

The funny result of this is that a balance in the industries would probably be struck where they all are actually making LESS profit than if they cooperated, because their individual motivations (and this betrayal aspect) will make it impossible for them to strike a different bargain. This happens in nature all the time, and for some reason it always makes me chuckle.


This means that without government-mandated allowance in some form for maternity leave, the only people who would be able to have babies without the complications of losing job/career progess/crucial income would be the extremely wealthy, the handful of irreplacables, and people with no career ambitions who were going to be stay-at-home parents anyway.

I think we should be working to increase the number of indispensible people, don't you? I think people who make themselves indispensible should be encouraged to have babies, and people who are superfluous and unable to adequately ensure their careers and future should not be encouraged to have babies. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to make themselves successful and valued employees before they make babies.

But also, as I pointed out, this scenario wouldn't naturally come about from the non-government-mandate situation.


At this point, you can say that giving extra punishment to people who don't fall into those categories is fine by you, no matter how you feel morally about the issue, because you wish to remain consistent with a stance against government meddling in your life. That's fine.

I don't think it's "extra punishment" at all, it's just the absence of reward. They are just as able to have children as humans have ever been throughout history, we simply remove a very recent form of encouragement that has been invented and imposed upon employers.


I argue that bearing children is a special case (and should not be treated in the same way as other forms of medical leave) and is a biological near-imperitive that is adaptively hardwired into us. That means that it should be treated as a special case.

But that still wouldn't matter. BS has convinced me that it is inconsistent for me to insist on government-mandated medical leave of any kind, so it doesn't matter how special childbirth is. It's also hardwired into us to survive (more hardwired than reproduction, by far), but needing surgery after a carwreck wouldn't be covered...and, as I have pointed out, giving birth is far more controllable than whether or not somebody gets in a car wreck.


To me, that means that some form of at least minimal maternity leave (say, for the time around the actual birth) should at least be a guaranteed privilege, if not considered a right, because I'm one of those crazies who puts the happiness of people at least slightly ahead of the profits of corporations.

I see no reason why the two cannot coexist. I also choose to remember that "corporations" are composed of people, not of robots or mutant zombie ninjas (though wouldn't that be cool?!), so the happiness of THOSE people is part of the equation.


All kidding aside, I can see how other rational people could disagree with that. Maybe I am interpreting the right to the "pursuit of happiness" too broadly. Though, the Founders did take care to change it to "happiness" instead of the original "pursuit of property" envisioned in the philosophy of Locke.

The PURSUIT of happiness is a right. Happiness is not. People have the right to pursue happiness, but the government isn't obligated to ensure they find it. You are free to pursue having children and a career, but the government isn't obligated to ensure that it's easy, effective, or happy.

Please go back to post 275 and change the last quote. I did not say that, Bottle did.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9032712&postcount=275
Ooops. Sorry. I fixed it. I guess I forgot to copy before I pasted.

I still don't see why. Yes, people need to make babies or humanity will cease to exist, but we won't die out if people stop getting plastic surgery...but what does this have to do with this discussion? Both giving birth and having plastic surgery are (at least in theory) choices that an individual can make. Regardless of how essential or nonessential they may be to the continued survival of the human race, they are still choices. The human race will also die out if nobody is producing foostuffs, but we don't require all employers to give time off during harvest seasons.

I'm sorry, bottle, but that may be the DUMBEST argument I've ever heard and I've been on Nationstates for over a year and on earth for over thirty.

I'm sorry, bottle, but that may be the DUMBEST argument I've ever heard and I've been on Nationstates for over a year and on earth for over thirty.
For such a wise and well-traveled fellow, your analysis is surprisingly lacking. If you'd like to offer specific criticisms then please do so. If you'd just like to flaunt your petulance...well, actually, feel free to continue doing that, too. I find it adorable. :)

For such a wise and well-traveled fellow, your analysis is surprisingly lacking. If you'd like to offer specific criticisms then please do so. If you'd just like to flaunt your petulance...well, actually, feel free to continue doing that, too. I find it adorable. :)

Actually, Bottle, I noticed it because it's unusual for you, but I really was awestruck by how nonsensical it is. I really should have been specific so I will be.

The human race will also die out if nobody is producing foostuffs, but we don't require all employers to give time off during harvest seasons.

I don't think you really think that employers giving people time to birth children and recover from this event and employers giving people time to do a completely different job is the same thing. At least, I hope you don't.

Actually, Bottle, I noticed it because it's unusual for you, but I really was awestruck by how nonsensical it is. I really should have been specific so I will be.

I don't think you really think that employers giving people time to birth children and recover from this event and employers giving people time to do a completely different job is the same thing. At least, I hope you don't.
I think having a child is a completely different job from, say, being a librarian. Parenting is a completely different job than being an accountant. I consider parenting to be a responsibility (as well as, hopefully, a pleasure), and one that should be regarded with at least the same seriousness as a whole other career.

I think having a child is a completely different job from, say, being a librarian. Parenting is a completely different job than being an accountant. I consider parenting to be a responsibility (as well as, hopefully, a pleasure), and one that should be regarded with at least the same seriousness as a whole other career.

That's at the very least inaccurate. It is most of the time expected that while you work within your chosen career that you will become a parent or continue to parent. Many occupations, in fact, require you not to work anywhere else however. Parenting is not viewed, should not be viewed, and never will be viewed in the same way as another occupation would be. Regarding it with the same seriousness is not regarding it the same.

My wife is a full time parent. Most days, except for our every other Friday night dates, my wife is with our two little ones.

Here's contraversy, are working moms actually part time moms. Here's a typical schedule from one of my local buddy's family.

6AM Everyone's awake
7AM Oldest kid gets on the bus, the other two are off to daycare
8AM At work
5PM Leave work
5:30PM Pickup kids
6PM Eat (at home or out)
7PM Bathtime for kiddies
8PM Kids in bed
11PM - 6AM Mom is asleep getting rest

She sees/converses with her kids 2 to 3 hours a day.

Part time Mom.

That's at the very least inaccurate. It is most of the time expected that while you work within your chosen career that you will become a parent or continue to parent.

Sometimes. Some career paths make it clear that you will NOT have time to parent or spend time with your family. For instance, students entering medical school are expressly told that they will be expected to work very harsh hours, and that a desire to spend more time with their family (however necessary it might be) will not be accepted as an excuse for missing required hours. A friend of mine has recently entered medical school, and he was advised to not even try to start a dating relationship until he was past the first two stages of his education.

Many occupations, in fact, require you not to work anywhere else however.

I don't see why the one is any different than the other, in terms of the employer's perspective. The only reason having another job might potentially be different is for jobs where security must be very tight, or where conflicts of interest might exist if somebody took certain other jobs.

Additionally, please remember that in the situation we are discussing the employers wouldn't be telling employees they cannot have families, just that employers would be saying they won't give special time off for "family" reasons. People are still more than free to have families along with their careers, and they would almost positively be able to find employment with a company that offered paternity leave...all we are saying is that government should not be commanding all employers to offer such leave.


Parenting is not viewed, should not be viewed, and never will be viewed in the same way as another occupation would be.

Perhaps not by you. Many people do view parenting like a career. I have been expressly told by many women that their "career" is motherhood, and that their job is their children. You don't have to agree with them, but simply stating your opinion doesn't make it more valid than the opinions of others.

My wife is a full time parent. Most days, except for our every other Friday night dates, my wife is with our two little ones.

Here's contraversy, are working moms actually part time moms. Here's a typical schedule from one of my local buddy's family.

6AM Everyone's awake
7AM Oldest kid gets on the bus, the other two are off to daycare
8AM At work
5PM Leave work
5:30PM Pickup kids
6PM Eat (at home or out)
7PM Bathtime for kiddies
8PM Kids in bed
11PM - 6AM Mom is asleep getting rest

She sees/converses with her kids 2 to 3 hours a day.

Part time Mom.
If a parent who is working is a "part-time parent," then working fathers are part-time fathers. If that woman is a part-time mom, then you are probably a part-time dad. Also, all parents who have kids in school outside the home are part-time parents.

But, of course, such a term would be utterly foolish. Any parent worth a dime knows that great parenting isn't about how many hours a day you spend hovering over your kids' shoulders. My mother is my mother 24/7, and I haven't even lived in her home for 5 years. She has worked my whole life but has been my mother for every single instant. No matter where I am, I always can contact her, and she would drop everything in her life to come get me if I needed her. Like my father, she has always been and will always be my parent, full-time. I am proud of her and her career, and I don't believe she would be as good a mother if she were a homemaker. I don't believe I would be as good a daughter if I hadn't attended latchkey and public school. Our bond is not less meaningful because of her work...if anything, it is far more so.

I think it's stupid to define parenting purely by quantity, anyhow. Some parents are worthless no matter how many hours per day they spend around their kids, and other parents (especially in cases of divorce) are wonderful, supportive, powerful forces in their kids' lives even though they only see them a few days each week, or a few weeks each year.

Sometimes. Some career paths make it clear that you will NOT have time to parent or spend time with your family. For instance, students entering medical school are expressly told that they will be expected to work very harsh hours, and that a desire to spend more time with their family (however necessary it might be) will not be accepted as an excuse for missing required hours. A friend of mine has recently entered medical school, and he was advised to not even try to start a dating relationship until he was past the first two stages of his education.

I don't see why the one is any different than the other, in terms of the employer's perspective. The only reason having another job might potentially be different is for jobs where security must be very tight, or where conflicts of interest might exist if somebody took certain other jobs.

Additionally, please remember that in the situation we are discussing the employers wouldn't be telling employees they cannot have families, just that employers would be saying they won't give special time off for "family" reasons. People are still more than free to have families along with their careers, and they would almost positively be able to find employment with a company that offered paternity leave...all we are saying is that government should not be commanding all employers to offer such leave.


Perhaps not by you. Many people do view parenting like a career. I have been expressly told by many women that their "career" is motherhood, and that their job is their children. You don't have to agree with them, but simply stating your opinion doesn't make it more valid than the opinions of others.

Ask them if they view being a parent while having a job and having two jobs as equivalent in importance. In fact if you asked them which was more important of the "breadwinner's" roles, the parent or the employee, I think you would get a resounding answer of parent. I doubt you'd find a large percentage of employers that would disagree with this, as most of them have familial obligations as well. Your point holds no water. And you really should look around. Most professional companies (jobs where employers expect you to continue to be employed there until retirement) require you to sign something expressly forbidding moonlighting, for the entirety of your career, or at least have policies restricting alternate employment. Most jobs that put any restrictions on parenthood do so temporarily (I won't mention that you mentioned an educational instutitution and not a job. Oh, oops, I did). You've still made an absolutely inadequate comparison even if I buy everything you're selling, which I don't.

And just to add to the lameness of the analogy, the second job can fire the employee and replace them. Children cannot fire their parents and get replacements. When forced to choose between their job and their children parents HAVE to choose their children if for no other reason than neglect is illegal.

I still don't see why. Yes, people need to make babies or humanity will cease to exist, but we won't die out if people stop getting plastic surgery...but what does this have to do with this discussion? Both giving birth and having plastic surgery are (at least in theory) choices that an individual can make. Regardless of how essential or nonessential they may be to the continued survival of the human race, they are still choices. The human race will also die out if nobody is producing foostuffs, but we don't require all employers to give time off during harvest seasons.

Jocabia already addressed this well, but I want to say a bit more on it.

You are really straying away from logic here. Saying that because two things both share the quality of involving a choice they therefore should be treated as equivalent is like saying that humans and dogs both contain the element carbon, and are therefore equivalent organisms. You should know better.

Another thing to think about is, to go with your example, plastic surgery, though extremely and sometimes pathologically (coughmichaeljacksoncough) desired by some, is not a biological imperitive that the vast majority of people are naturally heavily biologically rewarded for. Also, childbirth is heavily encouraged and approved of by our society, while plastic surgery is not really widely approved and much less explicitly encouraged. Having children is supposed to, both biologically and socially, be a part of our lives by design (and by design, I mean natural evolution of both organisms and society). Ski accidents and plastic surgery are not.

Doesn't matter if they both involve a choice. Child birth is a special case, and should be treated as such.



Actually, many corporations would. There are already corporations and businesses that choose to take a hit by "doing the right thing" simply because that's what the owners and bosses want to do. It may not be as common as we'd like, but we shouldn't pretend it never happens...that would be an insult to all the people we should be praising! :)

Those people are great. They are also being bred out of existence. Not biologically, but by changes to the economy and by a society that just keeps moving further away from any desire for fairness or "doing the right thing" and further and further toward "doing the most profitable with, screw ethics" being the number one priority of every one.

If society cannot be turned around (which I think should be the first thing that should be tried before government mandated birthing leave), then sometimes people have to be made to "do the right thing" in order to protect the rights of the less powerful people in the equation.




Also, a random thought: perhaps we should be working to change society so that it is profitable to do the right thing?

You know I'm all for that. But if you're against using the government as one of the vehicles for that social change, it would be a lot harder to accomplish.


Happily, the profit motive will probably prevent this. Drawing on my memory of selection biology, I can definitively tell you that such situations virtually never occur. Even if all companies would save money by jointly refusing to offer leave, ONE company could profit even more from being the only company that does offer leave (thus attracting superior employee for the same pay, producing better output, having much much much better PR, etc), and thus it will be in the best interests of a company to be the one that gives leave. There will be "betrayal in the ranks," if you will, as long as individual gain is the goal for these companies.

Why? Why agree to pay any extra cost that you are not forced to? Companies can attract better employees in a number of other ways that don't involve breaking a perfectly good set-up of never having to provide maternity leave. The benefits of keeping no maternity leave the status quo would outweigh the tiny gain in the quality of a few employees. Besides, it has always been in the best interests of companies to ensure that as many of their employees are interchangeable/expendable as possible. That way, they get to keep more power over their employees. It is in their interests to make sure that they minimize the number of truly valued employees and keep it at a handful. I think you severely overestimate the potential for value anyone but the absolute cream of the crop could attain no matter how hard they try.

Are you really advocating a world in which only the top 1% are regarded as deserving anything, and the average person should be given no benefits no matter how hard they work or how many good choices they make? I hope you are not really as cynical as you sound.



The funny result of this is that a balance in the industries would probably be struck where they all are actually making LESS profit than if they cooperated, because their individual motivations (and this betrayal aspect) will make it impossible for them to strike a different bargain. This happens in nature all the time, and for some reason it always makes me chuckle.

How is a small-scale interaction among a handful of animals (which operate primarily on instinct rather than the higher-order rationality humans are capable of) comparable to the interaction of large companies between each other and against their employees?


I think we should be working to increase the number of indispensible people, don't you? I think people who make themselves indispensible should be encouraged to have babies, and people who are superfluous and unable to adequately ensure their careers and future should not be encouraged to have babies. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to make themselves successful and valued employees before they make babies.


a) it is against corporate interest for too many people to be indispensible, so if I were corporations, I would design most jobs to be doable by almost anyone to prevent someone from being indispensable (because then they have more bargaining power), and then hire indispensible people for the handful of jobs in which it is absolutely necessary, but those people are already being paid so well that leave doesn't matter to them. Companies aren't as idiotic as you seem to think they are. Give your Randian heroes more credit.

It's great to encourage people to become indispensible, but companies can largely cripple that effort from their end, and there's no reason why they shouldn't (barring government mandate or personal ethics, which are getting rarer and more of a liability by the minute).

b) In that paragraph we reach a disagreement that I'm not sure can be resolved by rational argument and is instead simply a matter or opinion. It is not strictly related to the argument at hand (whether birthing leave should be government-mandated), but it has just come up tangentally. I think that average persons should be able to have happy lives too, and you seem to indicate that only the best of the best should have that privilege. Though you pay lip service to "they are allowed to be happy", you show in this quote that you actually don't think they deserve a share of happiness (of course no one is perfectly happy), whether or not you think they should have the right to it. Average people who work hard and make good choices, but sometimes make mistakes, still aren't good enough for you. Your comments here make me suspect your motives in taking the side that you do. Am I misinterpreting you?

But also, as I pointed out, this scenario wouldn't naturally come about from the non-government-mandate situation.

As stated above, you haven't convinced me.


I don't think it's "extra punishment" at all, it's just the absence of reward. They are just as able to have children as humans have ever been throughout history, we simply remove a very recent form of encouragement that has been invented and imposed upon employers.


And I think that being able to give birth without losing your job should be considered a right because it is a special case, so I view the removal of that right as "extra punishment".

Reward and punishment are always relative. You want to set the baseline at "no maternity leave" and I want to set it at "maternity leave," so of course we disagree on which is a punishment and which a reward.

Aww, poor employers, getting all imposed upon. Forcing them to give an employee paid leave for a few weeks is a small price to pay so that their employee's life can be much, much happier, even if that happier life for the employee does not directlyy benefit the company. Yeah, the company is really the one being imposed upon here.

See? We may have to agree to disagree on this one.


But that still wouldn't matter. BS has convinced me that it is inconsistent for me to insist on government-mandated medical leave of any kind, so it doesn't matter how special childbirth is.

I don't even know how that sentence sounded logical to you when you wrote it. Because childbirth is a special case is exactly why it is NOT inconsistent to support it.


It's also hardwired into us to survive (more hardwired than reproduction, by far), but needing surgery after a carwreck wouldn't be covered...and, as I have pointed out, giving birth is far more controllable than whether or not somebody gets in a car wreck.

And here you are even agreeing that giving birth is very different from a car wreck, so why would whether or not a car wreck is covered have anything to do with whether birthing should be covered?


And I dont' have any particular place to put this in the post, but I can't believe I've neglected to bring this up yet: birth is also a special case because it involves the creation of another life. I think someone else already mentioned this, but I haven't been making use of it.


I see no reason why the two cannot coexist.
The happiness of people and the profits of corporations can coexist. However, when they conflict (and they do, because employee happiness is not always in line with what is most profitable for the company, even you have to admit that), they can not always both benefit equally. Sometimes, one of them has to concede something to the other side, and I tend to err on the side of human happiness (in a way that I would consider "within reason"; I would not, say, give all the corp's money to people for free or something).


I also choose to remember that "corporations" are composed of people, not of robots or mutant zombie ninjas (though wouldn't that be cool?!), so the happiness of THOSE people is part of the equation.

Shows how little you know about corporations. PR departments always have at least one mutant zombie ninja on staff. :)

Joking aside, what do you think those people from which corporations are composed are called? Oh yeah, "employees", the people I'm arguing for. The people I'm defending are 99% of the people that make up those corporations, so your assertion that corporations are made of people doesn't support your argument the way you seem to think it does.



The PURSUIT of happiness is a right. Happiness is not. People have the right to pursue happiness, but the government isn't obligated to ensure they find it. You are free to pursue having children and a career, but the government isn't obligated to ensure that it's easy, effective, or happy.

You have convinced me that "pursuit of happiness" is not a useful argument in this discussion.

However, I do think that exploitation of the powerless by the powerful is a form of theft, and therefore the government is obligated to prevent that. I see this as an exploitative, theftful situation, and you clearly don't. We may have to agree to disagree on that aspect, as well.

First, I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated. .And I doubt you can defend your implied assertion that they did.Implied assertion? Look, you made a claim that I find hard to believe. I suspect it's just your assumption. I did not claim the opposite was true. Of course, that's what I think, but I didn't say it.

Implied assertion? Look, you made a claim that I find hard to believe. I suspect it's just your assumption. I did not claim the opposite was true. Of course, that's what I think, but I didn't say it.

You should really explore the definition of the word implied. Not just the denotation, but the connotation as well. You basically just said -

"Implied assertion? Where did I make an implied assertion? I didn't specifically say what you are claiming I said, I only implied it."

This seems kind of random for a topic... but I'd actually have to disagree in part. I do think men and women are equal in terms of being human and deserving dignity. Men and women were both created in the image of God. However, men and women have different roles.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Men and Women if you really think about weren't equal in God's terms because in the Bible its says "Be a submissive wife" and the man is supposed to be the head of the house and such. Sadly, people still beileve it. Well F that because its a bunch of B.S. If things are like that, why don't we just sit at home cleaning and cooking like women do. Well, no. That's not what women do, women work their butts off taking care of kids, hell, having kids is a challenge. Plus a woman and a man in the same position in a company don't alway get paid the same, What the hell is that? Why can't women and men in the same position, doing the same work, get the same pay? Why do women always get the short end of the stick with that kind of stuff? I mean it's not like they're stupid, Women have a brain too.

Sorry if I totally went off on a rant I just can't stand people of any gender, race or religion being treat unequal, its unfair and wrong.

Women can have women doctors but only as long as they call it something completely different so that there's no confusion and accidental cross-pollination. Hell, if they really want they can have the doctors and we can have technicians.

My cardiologist's female, I have no problem with it. She knows what she's on about which is all that really matters. Sure, if you're not comfortable with a doctor of the opposite sex, fine, but I don't think it's a big deal, and at this point I certainly wouldn't want to change to another doctor.

Oh, and on the subject of paternity leave, I'm in favour of it.

You should really explore the definition of the word implied. Not just the denotation, but the connotation as well. You basically just said -

"Implied assertion? Where did I make an implied assertion? I didn't specifically say what you are claiming I said, I only implied it."I'm well aware of what the word 'implied' means. The term 'implied assertion' sounds to me like an oxymoron, although it's actually a specific legal term for 'nonassertive verbal conduct' :confused:. Based on what I'm reading (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22implied+assertion%22&btnG=Search), I'd say that I made no implied assertion. If I were to say to someone "Hi John", that would be an implied assertion that the person's name is John. If you saw a man ask a woman "what do you want to do for our anniversary?", that would be an implied assertion that the two are married. All I did was question an assertion you made. That does not constitute an assertion (implied or otherwise) that what you said isn't true. If I implied anything it is that you don't know what you're talking about - that your claim that few employers offered maternity leave prior to being forced to is baseless - that you "pulled it out of your ass", so to speak. :p

Why can't women and men in the same position, doing the same work, get the same pay? Why do women always get the short end of the stick with that kind of stuff? I mean it's not like they're stupid, Women have a brain too. Agreed. If women happen to be doing the same as men, they should get paid/treated the same. And I agree, having kids is not an "easy thing" to do…

I'm well aware of what the word 'implied' means. The term 'implied assertion' sounds to me like an oxymoron, although it's actually a specific legal term for 'nonassertive verbal conduct' :confused:. Based on what I'm reading (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22implied+assertion%22&btnG=Search), I'd say that I made no implied assertion. If I were to say to someone "Hi John", that would be an implied assertion that the person's name is John. If you saw a man ask a woman "what do you want to do for our anniversary?", that would be an implied assertion that the two are married. All I did was question an assertion you made. That does not constitute an assertion (implied or otherwise) that what you said isn't true. If I implied anything it is that you don't know what you're talking about - that your claim that few employers offered maternity leave prior to being forced to is baseless - that you "pulled it out of your ass", so to speak. :p

At the front of every post, there is a name. Mine is Jocabia. I made no assertion. However, if I say, "the sky is black" and you say, "I doubt you can defend it", you have made the 'implied assertion' that the sky is, in fact, not black. If you had just said, "you must show evidence the sky is black before I accept it", then no assertion would have been made. By saying you suspect it cannot be defended you have implied that it is not true. And there you go. Now if you want to reply to Sinuhue then you are welcome to, but in the future you might take care to notice we are not the same person, the same sex, the same height, or even in the same country.

By the way, the bold part... is an assertion and, yes, it was implied. Once again you admit to the implied assertion after suggesting you made no such thing. Interesting.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Um, ok, I guess you must know what I have and haven't done. You must also know what I do and don't think. Even though you aren't sharp enough to use the correct form of "you're," I'm sure you are able to see inside my head and read my thoughts and view my life history.

Id like to see some proof, its easy to come on here and make stuff up like you obviously are, why cant you just admit your full of shit?

My low opinion is not of those who labor, but of those who have limited their lives to the point where all they can do is labor and then complain about having to labor.

Well thats abig turn around from what your previous statement of loathing people who worked in menial jobs.



Some people choose manual work because they like it; I see no problem with that, nor do I hold those people in contempt. However, if those people go home and expect their husbands or wives to let them shirk their responsibilities to their family, then I think they are pathetic and weak and don't deserve much respect.

What if that person is physically exhausted? Shouldnt the other person take up the slack here?
Id say you would be pathetic, if you badgered someone to work more after an exhausting physical day, their bringing in money, here that shopuld be enough.

Maybe the lazy one here in this regard would be yourself, after spending most of the day sitting in an office on your fat bum emailing your colleges or chatting on the phone, you come home and expect your partner, exhausted from going manual work outside, to do half the housework as well, some leverage should be applied here to balance the physical work load here more fairly.
That you cant see this, shows you to be naive.


You encourage the notion that real men work hard grunt jobs and therefore should be allowed to foist family and house work off on their wives...I encourage the notion that if a man starts a family he should be prepared to support it with more than just paychecks. Real men don't scoff at doing equal work around the home.

So you view a real man as a person who basically is socially engineered to act like a woman.
Also, go actually work in ahard grunt job for afew years( sorry but a few hours here and there once or twice a year dont really count for much sweetie) then come home exhausted to half the house work as well, presented to you from your smiling house husband.





Hint: mocking people for being on the internet through your posts on an internet forum is a tiny bit silly.

I was mocking your statement of claiming to know all the ins and outs of these manual jobs, hold various uni degrees, raise afamily and spend half your life on the net as well.
Sorry but your full of it.


I don't need to brag about how many people I've beaten up.

Have I?

How am I hurting myself? I'm making you look like the dink you are, I'm getting to share my opinions (which is one of the main reasons I come here), and I'm enjoying your tantrum immensely. The only "hurt" I can possibly see is that you--an anti-intellectual traditionalist I will never meet--seem to believe I am "a fraud." Not to disappoint you, but that's not really going to keep me up at night.

Oh boohoo, you called me a dink, :rolleyes: Im not anti intellectual at all, Im anti role reversing mostly.
Not meeting you will crush me as well, I was just saying the other day, what I really need most in life is to run into another feminist prat.

[QUOTE=Bottle]I'm sorry, did I use words you aren't familiar with? I don't like to grunt monosyllabic responses to complex issues, so if I've lost you at some point you can feel free to point out the area you need clarified.

Using words the majority of people have no use for, even on here, doesnt make you any more intelligent, it just makes you a self centered snob.
If your as intelligent as you think you are, then explain where the non monosyllabic word 'Xenophobia' came from, not the meaning, but who it was named for?
Hint: ancient Greece.
Try researching your vast superior grey matter, your so proud of without typing up google first. See how smart you really are.



Why would he mention it? He probably has, since most guys his age and from his background will have been, but I don't especially care. We don't spend our time telling each other how badass we are. We've got better things to do ;).

Like what, discussing feminism? Talking about the merits of giving your son a dolly? What an exciting life you two lead. :rolleyes:



Why would he attack you? You are clearly no threat to anybody.

That was inferred as 'you' thinking that, not me.
Your not that bright either you know.


He calls me a girl, I call him a boy. We're young, and we view ourselves as young. Neither of us is insulted by being referred to with the terms for young persons of our respective genders.

Maybe subconsiously, that is what you two are calling each other, because deep down you recognise the truth of what you really are.

If you need to see somebody fight to get their measure then I recommend you stay safely in the suburbs, son.

It helps, of course going blind into a fight without having fought the person before or seeing him fight puts you and him on the same playing field, to begin with, if the other person has the same knowlege of you.
Then its usually the guy who can fight the longest that wins.
Stay safely in the suburbs?? What are you on about?? I live in the city.


Where I come from you have to be able to judge a person's strength and ability from more than first-hand observation of their ass-whupping skills.

But what strength and ability are you taking about, were talking about fighting here arent we?
And what better way is there to judge a persons ability in a fight than to observe them in one?? :rolleyes:

Yay, he's back!!! Sorry to everybody else on this thread, but I'm probably not going to pump out many more responses at you while this wonderful fellow is about!

Id like to see some proof, its easy to come on here and make stuff up like you obviously are, why cant you just admit your full of shit?

What part of "I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO JUSTIFY MY LIFE TO YOU" is unclear? Let me say it once more, in the hopes you will get it this time: I don't care if you believe me. Your opinion of my life is irrelevant. Get over it.


Well thats abig turn around from what your previous statement of loathing people who worked in menial jobs.

Actually, it's only a big turnaround for the straw man you were battling so bravely with.


What if that person is physically exhausted? Shouldnt the other person take up the slack here?

If a person knows they will be working a job that will leave them constantly exhausted and unable to pull their weight around the home, then they should not have a family. That would be the honorable choice.


Id say you would be pathetic, if you badgered someone to work more after an exhausting physical day, their bringing in money, here that shopuld be enough.

Fine. Then any woman who brings in money should also be exempt from all housework and childcare...that's all that matters, right? So if a woman feels more tired after a long day, then her husband should take care of the home and the kids without complaining, right? I mean, we women are just so naturally weak and puny, so just lifting a pen will wear us out. I guess you big tough boys should probably be the ones who do all the hard stuff for us.

Or, gee, how's about both partners commit equal time and energy to the family they create together? Or would that be just too durn nutty to deal with?

Maybe the lazy one here in this regard would be yourself, after spending most of the day sitting in an office on your fat bum emailing your colleges or chatting on the phone, you come home and expect your partner, exhausted from going manual work outside, to do half the housework as well, some leverage should be applied here to balance the physical work load here more fairly.

Again with your straw (wo)man. I haven't got an office, I'm rotten at returning email, I dislike talking to friends on the phone, and I don't expect my partner to do any housework because we don't live together. I'm also not dating somebody who does manual labor...remember? You spent like three pages telling me what a nancy boy I am dating. He's not out hammering up drywall with the Real Men.

That you cant see this, shows you to be naive.

That you continue to argue with your made-up version of reality shows you to be delightful. Please don't stop!

So you view a real man as a person who basically is socially engineered to act like a woman.

I view a real man as a person who takes responsibility for any family he makes. I view a real man as one who lives up to his potential and works to the best of his ability, even if that ability doesn't involve using a jackhammer or scratching his crotch or getting into bar fights.

If being intelligent, honorable, respectful, and talented is "acting like a woman," then yes, I look for "womanish" men. Oh, and womankind thanks you for the compliment, by the way.

Also, go actually work in ahard grunt job for afew years( sorry but a few hours here and there once or twice a year dont really count for much sweetie) then come home exhausted to half the house work as well, presented to you from your smiling house husband.

Why would I have a house husband? And why would I abandon an exciting and lucrative career path to do menial labor? Are you still having trouble grasping the fact that I am not interested in proving anything to you?

I've done manual labor...I don't especially want to do it for a lifetime. If you like it so very much then you should pursue such a career path. But you should also probably quit bitching about it and expecting other people to clean up your messes for you.

I was mocking your statement of claiming to know all the ins and outs of these manual jobs, hold various uni degrees, raise afamily and spend half your life on the net as well.
No, sweetie, that's what you were TRYING to do. What you were accomplishing was being a flagrant insult to all the decent, hardworking family men out there. What you were doing was showing your arse, to put it bluntly, and you should really just drop it. My personal life has no bearing on this debate.

Sorry but your full of it.

Why yes, I am indeed full of brilliantly snarky comments about rubes who toss random insults at me over the internet! Thank you for noticing :).

Have I?

You've kindly informed me that any man who doesn't brag about his fighting history is a wuss and a loser. If you are now saying that you don't brag about your many fights, then...well, you said it, not me...


Oh boohoo, you called me a dink, :rolleyes:

Don't cry, people will think you are a woman! :)


Im not anti intellectual at all, Im anti role reversing mostly.

I can see why you would oppose "role reversing." You clearly aren't in any way equipped to deal with the stress of living on your own, caring for a home, rearing children, or picking out your own socks. I can completely understand why having a woman in a traditional role would make your life easier. I can see why you long for the simplicity of going out and bashing game with your stone axe, then dragging the carcass back to the fire so your female can clean it for you.


Not meeting you will crush me as well, I was just saying the other day, what I really need most in life is to run into another feminist prat.
If you don't like running into feminists (male or female) then I have a very nice rock under which you may hide. Oh, but I see you've got your own. Never mind, then.

Using words the majority of people have no use for, even on here, doesnt make you any more intelligent, it just makes you a self centered snob.

Honestly, I didn't notice anybody else having trouble with my vocabulary. If you did (honestly) then let me know what you need clarified. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. If you, or anybody else, is having trouble with my word choice then PLEASE TELL ME. I was not intentionally trying to use difficult vocab that might exclude people from the conversation, but if I did so then I am sorry.


If your as intelligent as you think you are, then explain where the non monosyllabic word 'Xenophobia' came from, not the meaning, but who it was named for?
Hint: ancient Greece.
Try researching your vast superior grey matter, your so proud of without typing up google first. See how smart you really are.

Wait, I thought tossing about big words makes one a self-centered snob? Are you trying making a bid to join the Self-Centered Snob Club? Because I haven't even got my membership card yet, so I'm in no position to sponsor you.


Like what, discussing feminism? Talking about the merits of giving your son a dolly? What an exciting life you two lead. :rolleyes:

Why would we need to discuss feminism? He doesn't need anybody to teach him that women are good for more than cooking and babies. He also doesn't need to be told that bragging about your fighting history (or insulting the fighting history of other men) makes you look like an insecure closet case.

And, dude, BABIES?! Why are you men in such a hurry to settle down and make families? Can't we just have a casually sexual relationship, for a change? ;)


That was inferred as 'you' thinking that, not me.
Your not that bright either you know.

Hint #2: When attempting to disparage somebody else's intelligence, it is best to at least spell all your monosyllabic words correctly.


Maybe subconsiously, that is what you two are calling each other, because deep down you recognise the truth of what you really are.

Um, yes, deep down we know that the English language uses the word "boy" for a young male human and "girl" for a young female human. We are aware that the term "boyfriend" (as opposed to "manfriend") is used in common parlance to refer to a romantic interest of the male gender, and that "girlfriend" (as opposed to "womanfriend") is used to refer to a romantic interest of the female gender. We are aware that even post-pubescent males and females may be refered to as "boy" or "girl," and that these terms are most often not intended as insults or disparagements.

Believe me, our understanding of our native language is not restricted to our subconsciousnesses.

Dude, is that actually a valid plural? "Subconsciousnesses"? I have no clue. Oh crap, but don't tell the Self Centered Snob Membership Board I admitted that!


It helps, of course going blind into a fight without having fought the person before or seeing him fight puts you and him on the same playing field, to begin with, if the other person has the same knowlege of you.
Then its usually the guy who can fight the longest that wins.

If you say so.


Stay safely in the suburbs?? What are you on about?? I live in the city.

I don't believe you! Prove it! You don't live in the city! You've never been in a fight! You don't even have arms! You're making it all up!


But what strength and ability are you taking about, were talking about fighting here arent we?
And what better way is there to judge a persons ability in a fight than to observe them in one?? :rolleyes:
Watching somebody fight certainly is a great way to assess their ability. I would even agree it is the best way. However, it is not the only way. If you rely ONLY on such direct observation then you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage.

Now, I don't come from "da 'hood" or anything, but I've lived in a couple of places where you needed to be able to read folks BEFORE they started beating somebody's ass...mostly because waiting that long would increase the likelihood that it would be your ass getting beaten. If you haven't had to live somewhere like that, then I am honestly happy for you, and I hope you never need to learn such lessons the hard way.

ok, to start off, I'm a guy and I'm 14. Hi. How are you? Anyways, on with the post.

Chewbaccula: I don't see why you think a guy has to do manual labor, fight, be rude and act like an ape. I hate fighting, the whole concept pisses me off. Y'know how many fights I've been in in my whole 14 years of life? None. I'm happy about that. Along with my hate for fighting people, comes my preference to be nice to them. It's a lot easier than punching everyone. When I get older and get a job I definitley DON'T want a manual labor/grunt job. It would be horrible. I don't want to be the guy drilling away with a jackhammer or crawling through mine shafts and likes. No. I want to be the guy in the fancy sports car, driving to his calm, stable job, which pays good $.

Bottle: I don't use monosyllabic words, and neither does anyone I know. It's a lot harder to talk when you're limited to just one syllable per word + some grunts.

And now for my general views:
Feminists. Feminists are ok, to an extent. The ones that piss me off are the ones that keep parading for more and more rights, despite the fact that in the end, they gain nothing and men actually lose some rights because of it. I don't want some lady yelling at me just because I'm a guy and we're all rude, smelly, stupid criminals who're all wifebeaters, woman-haters, obsessed with sports and overly competitive. Pisses me off. Hugely.

Competitveness and such. For some reason everyone thinks guys need to be competitive jerks. No. Competition in the end is kinda pointless. So you won an award and a fancy ring. Whoopdy friggin doo. If there's $ involved then maybe I'll put in some effort but that's about it. The one sport I do like is Ice Hockey. I like snowboarding too, but I do it as a casual thing, not competitive. I played baseball "The American Passtime", after a year or so I hated it. I used to play soccer but the short shorts piss me off, and it's kinda dull now.

People that make judgements based on sex. The people that think, hey he's a guy, he'll be good at sports, love them, and be rude. No. Or the people who think, hey she's a girl, all she does is gossip, shop, and is bad at sports. No. There's a few girls at my school who are EXTREMELY competitive. They're rude, and they love sports. There are some guys at my school (including me), who don't like sports (some like me like Ice Hockey tho) and are nice to people who are nice back.

This is what I think and believe. I will probably get flames from both sides. I don't care. You're entitled to your own opinion, this is mine that is yours. I won't use my opinions to attack your's, unless I do it by accident. I hope this wasn't to long of a read, and that you actually read it and cared about my opinions. If you decide to flame me, have fun. Once again, this is my opinion, that is yours.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Yay, he's back!!! Sorry to everybody else on this thread, but I'm probably not going to pump out many more responses at you while this wonderful fellow is about!

Thats because you enjoy displaying how much of a bitch you can be right?
Im so impressed. :rolleyes:


What part of "I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO JUSTIFY MY LIFE TO YOU" is unclear? Let me say it once more, in the hopes you will get it this time: I don't care if you believe me. Your opinion of my life is irrelevant. Get over it.

So in other words you cant back up what your saying, you are in fact just talking out of your arse as usual.

Actually, it's only a big turnaround for the straw man you were battling so bravely with.

Another dodge by Bottle, now shes pretending not to believe in what she says here, that in fact it was a hypothetical, pity she didnt mention that to begin with :rolleyes: yep keep covering up lol

If a person knows they will be working a job that will leave them constantly exhausted and unable to pull their weight around the home, then they should not have a family. That would be the honorable choice.

So your saying here that the only people who should have familys are people who arent physically exhausted at the end of the day,did it ever occur in your pea sized brain that pulling their weight in supporting a family, by bringing in a large amount of cash to the household, and exhausting themself in the process is more than enough, for you to support the ideal that this person should then get up and then do half the housework as well after this, when you have done nothing through the day to exhaust yourself, except for maybe one trip to many to the coffee perculator, shows you to be quite frankly a nasty lazy person.



[QUOTE]Fine. Then any woman who brings in money should also be exempt from all housework and childcare...that's all that matters, right?

Totally agreed, if shes with some lazy sob who cant get a job for ages.

So if a woman feels more tired after a long day, then her husband should take care of the home and the kids without complaining, right?

Depends on what shes doing to feel like that, if its long hours in an office, then no, if its long hours working in filthy dangerous, physically exhausting job, and her husband sits in an office all day, then yes her husband should do more work in the house etc I get the strong feeling but, from your naive statements, that you have never really worked in a hard physical job for along period of time.
And what you would consider physically hard, I probably wouldnt even notice.


I mean, we women are just so naturally weak and puny, so just lifting a pen will wear us out. I guess you big tough boys should probably be the ones who do all the hard stuff for us.

Well we usually have too. :rolleyes:



Or, gee, how's about both partners commit equal time and energy to the family they create together? Or would that be just too durn nutty to deal with?

Because of the physical variables here, fuck! How many times do I have to try and get you to see this?
You obviously live in some coocoon little intellectual, white collar world where none of the men or probably anyone does physical work for a living, you are completely out of touch with a large section of society, and thus seeking to impose your family arrangements, you live by, on to us.
Would it be too darn nutty for you to see that not all of society can live with your family arrangements?


I view a real man as a person who takes responsibility for any family he makes. I view a real man as one who lives up to his potential and works to the best of his ability, even if that ability doesn't involve using a jackhammer or scratching his crotch or getting into bar fights.

But you dont view a guy who works physically hard all his life as one, you look down on him, as less of a man because he scratches his balls sometimes etc( your pet man probably does this too when your not looking of course) :rolleyes:



If being intelligent, honorable, respectful, and talented is "acting like a woman," then yes, I look for "womanish" men. Oh, and womankind thanks you for the compliment, by the way.

You look for womanish men, because their easy to control. :rolleyes:
What you seek in a partner is based pretty much on that.



I've done manual labor...I don't especially want to do it for a lifetime. If you like it so very much then you should pursue such a career path. But you should also probably quit bitching about it and expecting other people to clean up your messes for you.

Im not bitching about it, just pointing out whats involved in real work.
No one is cleaning up my messes as you put it either.

No, sweetie, that's what you were TRYING to do. What you were accomplishing was being a flagrant insult to all the decent, hardworking men out there. What you were doing was showing your arse, to put it bluntly, and you should really just drop it. My personal life has no bearing on this debate.

So now the 'crotch scratching brawling neanderthals' as you put it before, are now 'decent hard working men' your pretty confused about the whole issue arent you?

Why yes, I am indeed full of brilliantly snarky comments about rubes who toss random insults at me over the internet! Thank you for noticing :).

That your full of shit? No prob, anytime.

You've kindly informed me that any man who doesn't brag about his fighting history is a wuss and a loser. If you are now saying that you don't brag about your many fights, then...well, you said it, not me...

I dont, can you quote also where I said the above, dont take too long now....



Don't cry, people will think you are a woman! :)

They will if its fear. :)


I can see why you would oppose "role reversing." You clearly aren't in any way equipped to deal with the stress of living on your own, caring for a home, rearing children, or picking out your own socks. I can completely understand why having a woman in a traditional role would make your life easier. I can see why you long for the simplicity of going out and bashing game with your stone axe, then dragging the carcass back to the fire so your female can clean it for you.

Thats right reach for an extreme... :rolleyes:


If you don't like running into feminist (male or female) then I have a very nice rock under which you may hide. Oh, but I see you've got your own. Never mind, then.

Well their all round pains in the arse, Id like nothing better than to assemble the whole lot tightly in one place,and drop ayers rock on them.

Aww my post went unnoticed :(

Men and women were both created in the image of God.

Lol, you say that like it's a fact

Chewbaccula: I don't see why you think a guy has to do manual labor, fight, be rude and act like an ape. I hate fighting, the whole concept pisses me off. Y'know how many fights I've been in in my whole 14 years of life? None. I'm happy about that. Along with my hate for fighting people, comes my preference to be nice to them. It's a lot easier than punching everyone. When I get older and get a job I definitley DON'T want a manual labor/grunt job. It would be horrible. I don't want to be the guy drilling away with a jackhammer or crawling through mine shafts and likes. No. I want to be the guy in the fancy sports car, driving to his calm, stable job, which pays good $.


The concept pisses me off too, so much so that I will fight someone who is bashing someone up in an unfair fight. What would you do? Walk past?
What if its someone in your family getting smashed, sometimes you have to do something m8.

Well their all round pains in the arse, Id like nothing better than to assemble the whole lot tightly in one place,and drop ayers rock on them.

After Chewbaccula said this, I realized that it is not worth "debating" with such a person. Bottle, I really agree with all of your points, but I doubt anything will get through to this guy. I really want to start on a huge rant at this point but I'm going to control myself.

The concept pisses me off too, so much so that I will fight someone who is bashing someone up in an unfair fight. What would you do? Walk past?
What if its someone in your family getting smashed, sometimes you have to do something m8.
I know, under circumstances like those I would lend a hand, but I try my best to avoid fighting, I hate it.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Honestly, I didn't notice anybody else having trouble with my vocabulary. If you did (honestly) then let me know what you need clarified. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. If you, or anybody else, is having trouble with my word choice then PLEASE TELL ME. I was not intentionally trying to use difficult vocab that might exclude people from the conversation, but if I did so then I am sorry.

I didnt, but you bragged first for some reason about me only understanding monosylabillic words etc just pointless flaming I guess. :rolleyes:

Wait, I thought tossing about big words makes one a self-centered snob? Are you trying making a bid to join the Self-Centered Snob Club? Because I haven't even got my membership card yet, so I'm in no position to sponsor you.

Tossing them around doesnt, bragging about it does however, hint.



And, dude, BABIES?! Why are you men in such a hurry to settle down and make families? Can't we just have a casually sexual relationship, for a change? ;)

Why try and start familys at a later age when your sperm count isnt as healthy, and the womans eggs arent as fertile, ideal age for making strong healthy familys is between 20 and 30.

Hint #2: When attempting to disparage somebody else's intelligence, it is best to at least spell all your monosyllabic words correctly.

I didnt spell anything wrong there, your just flaming again.



Watching somebody fight certainly is a great way to assess their ability. I would even agree it is the best way. However, it is not the only way. If you rely ONLY on such direct observation then you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage.

Care to explain these other ways?
And why would you rely on them, if their not as good, which even you have admitted.


Now, I don't come from "da 'hood" or anything, but I've lived in a couple of places where you needed to be able to read folks BEFORE they started beating somebody's ass...mostly because waiting that long would increase the likelihood that it would be your ass getting beaten. If you haven't had to live somewhere like that, then I am honestly happy for you, and I hope you never need to learn such lessons the hard way.

Ive been there Bottle, you havent.

I know, under circumstances like those I would lend a hand, but I try my best to avoid fighting, I hate it.

Of course, fighting is evil, unfortunately fighting it back seems to be the only way sometimes.
The wisdom here is leaving all the bad feelings at the fight, and not taking them with you.

Men and women were both created in the image of God.

Lol, you say that like it's a fact

And you laugh as if its proven that it isn't. Let people believe what they wish, most are too stubborn to give into other peoples coaxing so let them go on and live how they want to.

Santa-Cruz: Believes there is a point to life, living, and the universe. All created by God, for the glory of Him and His son (if this is indeed what cruz believes), won't be swayed by science, no mater how evident and "obvious" the facts are. Let cruz live however he/she want to and believe whatever he/she wants to.

Seelenlos: Believes evolution, random creation, all stardust and subatomic particles whizzing around, no real point to life at all except to go around and do w/e the fuck ya want, won't be swayed by spiritualism (in most forms) no matter how miraculous the stories ae or the changes in peoples lives are when they "find Jesus". You can believe what you want to believe and live however you want to live.

You both will be stubborn, throw arguments around about creationism versus Big Bang or evolution or w/e the fuck you believe in until both of you hate each other and one (or both) of you will leave the site just because of a silly little dispute.

Cruz doesn't give a shit if you think evolution is true, he/she only wishes to reach you through Jesus to try and save your soul.

You do give a shit if cruz doesn't believe evolution is true because you want to try to bring people who are relatively happy believing what they want to down. You are trying to "bring truth" but face the facts, so is Cruz in his/her own way.

EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN OPINIONS REGARDING EVERYTHING FROM COLORS TO COUCHES TO GOD, EACH ONE AS STUBBORN AS THE LAST (especially on this website here)!

Even my own depiction of the events going on within this thread are opinions gathered from different situations and/or conversation in my life from which I developed my own seperate and conclusive ideas.

You may like green. Cruz may like blue. You both will argue your own side to the story and you both will be stubborn to switch sides and you won't.

why is this?
Pride.

We are all far to opinionated and too full of pride to switch our mindsets and so arguements about men and women and about how they are equal or not can stretch into an already extremely amazingly long thread of argumentative, proud, opinionated fights!

Men: try to (like everyone) justify their actions and opinions through arguements and fights (thusly long threads or swear words and accusing and bashing others who do not share those opinions)

Women: try to (like everyone) justify their actions through long-ass essays about how different and wrong YOU are compared to HER.

I would say "lets agree to disagree" but i know there will only be more fights about that and rude comments describing why I am an idiot compared to your opinions or that i am a fuckin ass-faced ball-licker because I think everyone have a right to their own opinion weather I believe the same thing or not.

I am a man (if you had not guessed through the swearing) and yet I remained composed enough to not scream and rant about how stupid everyone else is because they don't believe the same things i do.

Now lets summarize because I know onlt two or three of you will read this whole thing (because most of you are men so you don't have the time nor the brain copacity to fully appreciate this and some of you are women so do have time but will be so flustered by the end that you will go and have an early menstral cycle and then hate me because of it):

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS, REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT-MATTER, EVIDENCE FOR AND/OR AGAINST THEIR OINIONS, AND/OR THE FACT THAT YOU HATE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN WHAT THEY BELIEVE (this is most common amongst creationists versus evolutionists)

Even though I may not appreciate nor believe your own opinion, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

So anyone who screams at anyone else because
"ONLY MEN CAN DO THE HARD STUFF!!!1111111one!"**
or
"Women are a millions times smater, demontrated in a fun-fact guide of 1000+ reasons that I write down whenever I get dumped, called a name, am on my period, am bored, am angry at a daytime television soap-operah character because he cheated on his beautiful wife with an even more ravishing young woman [played by Kelly Ripa], am upset because I'm out of chocolate, am distraught because I was told that I could have my own opinions and so should everyone else but we shouldn't fight over them, am told that men are smarter and better than women, am angry because someone said 'cats suck', am angry because..."***

Now really people, just have your own opinions are let others have the ability to have their own opinions without the two of you (plus several other hundred thousand) having to yell and scream because they said their opinion andyou hate them now because you have the opposite.

SUMMARY (again) because i wrote more after the last one so none of you will actually read all of that:

LET EVERYONE HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND THEY WILL LET YOU HAVE YOUR OWN OPINIONS WITHOUT THE TWO OF YOU HAVING TO START A WAR OVER WHY WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOT EQUAL!!!

Thank you very much, this concludes tonight's lecture about why everyone in this thread (including me) are morons because all we did was state our opinions so that everyone else got all rallied up and caused arguements (which will continue about this post and whatever was said before this post [which i was too upset to read about because i was horrified in the way all of you were calling each other bitches and assholes.])

SUBNOTES:
** - adding the "!!!!!1111one!" was, in no way, meaning to say that all men are idiots so cannot type simple exclamation points, it is to say that all of you seem stupider when you are so extremely angry with each other that you don't concentrate long enough to notice that you did not exactly graduate the school for typing (which I did not either so don't feel bad).

*** - this, in no way, was to mean that women are bitches and always angry with men because they have their evil testosterones and horrible penises. This is to mean that women have lots of feelings to express them in a better way (such as making lists rather than punching holes into their walls).

AFTERNOTE:
The women will most likely agree with this post and the men will most likely say "what a pussy! he wrote out his feelings in an understandable and complete way! I say we all call him a pussy (like that damn pussy-ass france who didn't join the collest war ever! YEAH GO BUSH!! FUCK YEAH!!!!)"

And now, because I wrote it, all the men (who think they are oh-so hilarious) will copy-paste what I wrote and reply with it (because they are oh-so hilarious)
So all I say to you oh-so hilarious people: :upyours:

GOODNIGHT!

BTW: Chewbaccula and Turkish, your last post (with the quotes) I believe in fully and endorse your opinions.

After Chewbaccula said this, I realized that it is not worth "debating" with such a person. Bottle, I really agree with all of your points, but I doubt anything will get through to this guy. I really want to start on a huge rant at this point but I'm going to control myself.

...we will ever brainwash...

BTW: Chewbaccula and Turkish, your last post (with the quotes) I believe in fully and endorse your opinions.
Thanks.

Im glad your not a facist like Bottle.

Actually, they are equal just different. I think you meant to say "Men and women aren't the same" If not, I don't see how they aren't equal. You're right that we shouldnt be treated the same but we are all equal.

At the front of every post, there is a name. Mine is Jocabia. I made no assertion.Oops Sorry.However, if I say, "the sky is black" and you say, "I doubt you can defend it", you have made the 'implied assertion' that the sky is, in fact, not black. If you had just said, "you must show evidence the sky is black before I accept it", then no assertion would have been made. By saying you suspect it cannot be defended you have implied that it is not true.You're wrong. There's a big difference between what I admitted to implying and what I was accused of implying. If you were to say that 3 out of 10 domestic cats resent their owners and I were to accuse you of pulling that number out of your ass, that would not imply that I believe the statement to be factually inaccurate only that you cannot support your claim. Maybe it's a subtle distinction to you, but it's a major difference in a courtroom which is pretty much the only place 'implied assertion' means anything.

This began with me saying "I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated" to Sinhue, who turned around and accused me of making an implied assertion of the opposite. Well, I assume that's what she meant. Anyway, I should've just ignored her at that point. :headbang:

It's generally reasonable to challenge unsupported factual claims in civilized debate. It's totally unreasonable for the challenged to turn around and ask to be proved wrong. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

I'm done. If you have anything to add or just want the last the last word, it's all yours.

I agree with Hallocia. Men and women have different strengths, aptitudes, and characteristics that are better in some places than others. Although some women can do everything a stereotypical man can do and vice versa, there exists a difference in chemistry and inclination between the two that makes them more apt for success in certain roles. That doesn't mean that one role is better than another.

Look at it in terms of economics:
If country A can grow sugar more efficiently than potatoes, country B can grow wheat better than sugar, and country C can grow potatoes better than wheat, it behooves them to maximize their utils and grow that which they grow best and trade for that which their nation is ill suited for. Otherwise, it's a big waste.

I agree with Hallocia. Men and women have different strengths, aptitudes, and characteristics that are better in some places than others. Although some women can do everything a stereotypical man can do and vice versa, there exists a difference in chemistry and inclination between the two that makes them more apt for success in certain roles. That doesn't mean that one role is better than another.

Look at it in terms of economics:
If country A can grow sugar more efficiently than potatoes, country B can grow wheat better than sugar, and country C can grow potatoes better than wheat, it behooves them to maximize their utils and grow that which they grow best and trade for that which their nation is ill suited for. Otherwise, it's a big waste.
But unlike a crop all of the individual “plants” have the ability to determine their future … how would giving women equal rights = decreased efficiency?

Oops Sorry.You're wrong. There's a big difference between what I admitted to implying and what I was accused of implying. If you were to say that 3 out of 10 domestic cats resent their owners and I were to accuse you of pulling that number out of your ass, that would not imply that I believe the statement to be factually inaccurate only that you cannot support your claim. Maybe it's a subtle distinction to you, but it's a major difference in a courtroom which is pretty much the only place 'implied assertion' means anything.

This began with me saying "I doubt that you can defend your assertion that very few businesses granted maternity leave before it was mandated" to Sinhue, who turned around and accused me of making an implied assertion of the opposite. Well, I assume that's what she meant. Anyway, I should've just ignored her at that point. :headbang:

It's generally reasonable to challenge unsupported factual claims in civilized debate. It's totally unreasonable for the challenged to turn around and ask to be proved wrong. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

I'm done. If you have anything to add or just want the last the last word, it's all yours.

Talk about a false analogy. You talk about it like you were just saying it's not likely possible to defend her statement, like 3 out of 10 cats resenting their owners. Her statement could definitely be supported or refuted with a little research. You're statement meant at that point one of two things:
1. You're too ignorant to know that statistics exist as to percentage of employers that offered maternity leave prior to a law regarding it.
2. Sinuhue can't support this statement because it's not true.

I'll leave it up to you. Which was it? And, don't change what you said. You didn't ask her to support her claim. You said you doubted it was possible to support her claim. These are seperate and not equal actions. By saying what you said you made one of the two assertions above. Sinuhue just decided you weren't that ignorant and that you must have been claiming that it was impossible to support.

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.


Oh, so I guess you wouldn't want to be there with your wife while she is giving birth to your son or daughter? You'd rather just watch it on video? What kind of sick person are you thinking it is ok to miss the birth of your child?

Men and women are equal when it comes to rights and freedoms, but there is some power women still have over men. I know every woman knows of it and I make sure they cant control me with it. (Its how strippers make all of their money.)

But unlike a crop all of the individual “plants” have the ability to determine their future … how would giving women equal rights = decreased efficiency?

I never said they shouldn't have equal rights. I only said that their strengths should be magnified.

I never said they shouldn't have equal rights. I only said that their strengths should be magnified.
And how should that happen?
Personally I think the strengths of the individual should be the ones focused on rather then their sex

And how should that happen?
Personally I think the strengths of the individual should be the ones focused on rather then their sex

I agree. How do you propose to go about that?

I agree. How do you propose to go about that?
By not making sex a determinant in any sort of position … if you can make the cut you deserve to be where you are at
Weather it is a doctor or on the front lines … if you can hack it you are in

By not making sex a determinant in any sort of position … if you can make the cut you deserve to be where you are at
Weather it is a doctor or on the front lines … if you can hack it you are in

If only everyone could make judgment without relying on sight like you claim ability to do, that would be a plausible solution. Since humans rely so much on sight, it doesn't work that way, but it's a nice idea, one that I would like to see put into practice.

If only everyone could make judgment without relying on sight like you claim ability to do, that would be a plausible solution. Since humans rely so much on sight, it doesn't work that way, but it's a nice idea, one that I would like to see put into practice.
People have a right to think whatever they want on sight but their assumptions should be subject to change if they find out its wrong

I hope the people interviewing for things like military positions and such would go on a little more then sight

They're not equal. To say so is stupid. They deserve equal rights, but not treatment. Men should not be allowed to go on maternity leave, because they can't give birth. etc.


Women are definetly superior!!!
What man have you ever heard of going on maternity leave??? Apart from arnie in Junior. heehee. I think you ment paternity leave?!
How can you grant complete equal rights, but not equal treatment? Unequal treatment could be considered a breach of rights

People have a right to think whatever they want on sight but their assumptions should be subject to change if they find out its wrong

I hope the people interviewing for things like military positions and such would go on a little more then sight

should...

on that hangs every idea you have

should...

on that hangs every idea you have
Every idea is hinged on axioms ... the trick is finding out where yours come from and dealing with them