"Work"

Water Cooler
#81

Right. Because women were kept barefoot in kitchens in the 1940’s. Get real. If you think encouraging women to dump their kids off at daycare is a good social policy, then your opinion on this topic doesn’t carry much weight. I make enough that my wife can stay home with our kid and we can have a good lifestyle. But not everybody has our standard of living. For those who are working in less esoteric positions that require more actual labor, their wages are diluted by your “progressive” policies. Their already commoditized skills are easily replaceable by a larger workforce. So they don’t have any choice but for the wife to work full time and net just a little bit more than she has to pay in daycare just so that they can make ends meet.

And what’s your solution to this screwed up social policy that leaves no room for family? Why invent a new benefit that charges other people in order for a woman to stay at home and take care of her kid for the first few months of his/her life.

You’re trying to put a band-aid on a broken system. It’s no wonder marriage and childbirth rates are so low.

#82

What I think you are saying is that a woman does not deserve x,y,z (equal pay, equal promotion opportunities, etc. I won’t put the words in your mouth) because if she were to have child(ren), she would need x weeks of maternal leave, whereas a man does not, and therefore yes it is sexual discrimination but it is justified.

Might I remind you: (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm)

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

I don’t think anyone would suggest that the world should stop for you, whether you have a baby or break your leg. Breaking your leg is not an appropriate comparison as (I would argue) that having a child is a luxury, whereas an injury is an unforseen accident (I could get into details on whether it was due to negligence, etc., but I won’t to keep this simple). But regardless, if you were to be gone from your job for several weeks, would the IRS stop for you? Or does your employer have some sort of support system that he can rely on so that the deadlines can be met? A pregnancy, whether you argue that it’s a luxury or not, is long enough that arrangements can be made.

What I am saying is, beyond the first x weeks that a woman needs to physically recover from childbirth, the parental leave burden should be allowed to be shared by both mother and father, so that the mother does not de facto bear the entire burden of child rearing. It’s an ugly cycle. There is nothing wrong with a woman who chooses to leave the work force and have children, but it is absolutely not justified that a woman would be passed over in hiring/advancement opportunities simply because she is physically capable of having a child.

#83

Inky: So the best solution is for women to be ignorant and at home. Hell, its a waste for them to go to school then to? What nonsense. My wife has the financial ability to stay home, I make plenty of money for the both of us. But it is important to her that she gets to contribute in a career sense too. She’s a very intelligent and well educated professional. Saying that she should stay home would be a loser for the economy, as few could do her work, at least at her level. Systemtically discouraging women from meaningful work just shrinks the talent pool from which innovation comes from. I couldn’t imagine going around my office and telling all the women here, many very talented, that we would all be better off if they stopped diluting the labour pool.

#84

^No no no no, I wouldn’t refuse to hire her because of her race, color, religion, sex, or what not.

We just don’t have any open positions right now. Good luck to her in her job search.

#85

Women working isn’t some social experiment, it’s the effect of equal rights and a move towards equal opportunity. All these guys with good jobs bitching away on their computer about maternity leave. Go do some work.

I’m on jury duty right now and probably won’t be selected…if you want something to bitch about…

#86

^Greenie: So you would hire a less qualified man, that is a worse performer, if it meant you didn’t have to worry about pregnancy? Greenie, straight up as you’re a guy that has said he’s pretty big, if I decided to not hire a tax accountant because he was obese, and therefore carried a signficant chance in a year of missing time due to heart attack or stroke or diabetes or gout, that’d be a OK? I can’t afford the risk that you might have a heart attack on tax deadline day, so sorry, I need to select someone less risky.

#87

When did I say “ignorant”? You’re obviously expanding what I said in order to try and jerry-rig me into some sort of oppressive sterotype. An intelligent woman can better help raise well-adjusted children. This is clearly evident when one views the offspring of less educated (often single) mothers. Who wants a kid raised speaking broken english and trailing other kids because he never gets good help with his homework?

Sorry to say this, but women don’t contribute nearly as much to innovation as do men (e.g. men hold about 94% of patents). Their real contribution is lower the cost of labor for both men and women simply by participating in the workforce. Yes, the does result in a more robust economy, but as a pro-labor socialist, your advocacy comes at the expense of workers while benefitting owners.

#88

A pro labour socialist… Wow… I never thought I’d see the day when I got that label.

#89

Good point.

Who’s more foolish? The fool or the fool who argues with him?

#90

Probably one of the best posts in the thread.

#91

Straw man argument. And you have expanded the argument beyond the simple “man vs. woman” choice.

The underlying assumption is “all other things equal”. Would I hire an underperforming man over a woman? Depends. If he’s only 80% as good as her, but I know she’s only going to be at work 80% of the time, then there’s no difference, is there? Of course, there’s no way to know either of these in advance.

And yeah, I’m bigger than your average NFL lineman. And to be honest, if I’m faced with either a 400-lb couch potato or a marathon runner, I’ll take the marathon runner. Again, the is predicated on the assumption that all other things are equal.

#92

There is a huge productivity gap among employees of the same rank in the same profession. So a woman taking 12 weeks off maybe one to five times in her life is not going to make her any less productive. Even if she took a year off each time.

@moderators: put purealpha on Ban Watch.

@Greenman: let’s say you refuse to hire an equally qualified woman in favor of a manly man. For the same number of miles driven, men are 50% more likely to die in an auto crash because they are inherently more likely to follow unsafe practices like driving without a seat belt. (Especially in Podunk TX, but I digress.) What if your manly man dies on April 1st (or whenever you accountants have deadlines)? Better hire the woman, at least she will give you an advance warning.

@all: To echo Warren Buffett, women in the work force is one of the best changes in the social structure. Believe it or not, the poor women have always had to work and the rich never had to, and that has not changed. It’s the intelligent middle class women whose choices were limited to support professions like nurse, teacher, secretary can now actually aspire to be doctors and CEOs.

You would not condemn black people to slavery because it was convenient for the whites - cheap (no-cost) labor, ergo infinite productivity. So don’t banish women from the workplace because it is convenient for men. Social justice, brothers!

#93

There’s a reason countries with low birth rates and low immigration are now instauring generous mat benefits in order to keep up with an ageing population. Where I’m from, birth rates went from 1.3 kids per family to 1.8 since the current mat program started, which is a significant increase. Once you reach the intended goal, you can always scale back the benefit.

#94

Hey Emichan, you seem like a cool girl. And I’m sure the pay gap thing is frustrating. But research does show it’s partly to blame with females not negotiating salaries and also not being as eager to apply when not-exactly-qualified like their male counter parts. And yes, there are negative social consequences if the female negotiates in a “manly” manner. But you seem so fiesty, you probably negotiate like a pro.

#95

These 2 points are absolutely true. I once talked to a female CEO and she told me that men come better prepared when it comes time to ask for a raise. They back up their reasons, compare their pay to the market rate and aren’t afraid to talk about their accomplishments.

#96

Ha, that’s a nice subtle but effective way of telling me I’m rambling, like it. I’m not terrible at negotiating, but only when I’m truly confident–ie I can’t bluff. But I appreciate the comment (and geo too, I didn’t miss the comment, thanks.)

You know, I’ve always thought wage gap was a myth–it’s illegal! was my rationale. But whether you’re talking about wage gap due to different industries (women in social work, men in engineering, etc) or maternity leaves (leaving altogether) or straight up discrimination re: promotion/hires, yes I accept that it’s party personal responsibility, but there’s more than that too. I chose to study then pursue a career in finance because yes I am interested in it, but it also has a lot of earning potential. Linguistics is my true passion, but there’s no money in that. And I don’t have much personal gripes re: wage gap because my low salary is attributed to my lack of experience, not sex.

But this thread shows that this deeply rooted bias against/straight up discrimination against women is real. If I ever end up working for someone like that–I hope I don’t–I don’t know if I’ll bump my head against a glass ceiling. I’ll just work on myself and my negotiating skills until that day comes.

#97

Perhaps you are looking in all the wrong places. The key it would seem is to get your combination right.

#98

.

#99

My true talent is that I am a cunning linguist. It’s one of those jobs where you must make work your passion.

#100

But can you perform excellent cunnilingus?