How is this statement contraversial?

[dre]

This is only true for women with a specialized skill where the value added to the economy exceeds the cost of paying someone else to provide childcare. Women with such skills will typically find that employers are more than willing to accommodate.

Maternity leave only needs to be a year... subidizing daycare to the point where its worth it to stay working doesnt cost much and only needs to go on for a couple of more years. And in many cases when we DONT provide these things the mother ends of on income assistance anyways. She becomes a dependant of the state instead of a sponsor.

[TimG]

And in many cases when we DONT provide these things the mother ends of on income assistance anyways. She becomes a dependant of the state instead of a sponsor.

In MANY cases? You are saying that single moms on welfare make up a large percentage of mothers now? We are in deep trouble as a society if this was actually true.

In any case, I don't subscribe to the view that society is necessarily better off forcing young children into group care facilities. If a mother wants to take of her own children until they are school age then that is likely better for society.

Edited August 4, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

 

It is a word she uses to describe people who form rational positions based on logic and analysis rather than her preferred way of forming positions based on irrational ideological preconceptions

Maybe the same way conservatives dinosaurs do?

[jacee]

You have to admit that if 2 people (a man and woman) of equal experience and education are hired at the same time, it would be unfair to promote the person who was off for a year over the one who has worked 5-6 days a week during that same year.

Maternity & paternity leave are not 'holidays'.

They are a contribution to the greater good for our society. Children are a necessity for our society to continue.

People cannot legally be punished, passed over for promotion, etc. for taking parental leave.

.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

I thought that is what immigration is for.

There is no responsibility to do so. Having children is a choice.

 

Your first statement is dum. Your second is dummer. But here's a simple question. What if everyone decided to quit having babys?

[TimG]

Your first statement is dum. Your second is dummer. But here's a simple question. What if everyone decided to quit having babys?

The birth rate in all industrialized countries is below replacement level already because the cost of raising kids is so high. Immigration masks this problem but does not eliminate it because immigrates face the same cost pressures as long time residents.

This implies that we need to have a work place that accommodates parents, however, there are practical limits on what accommodations can be imposed on all employers. i.e. if someone chooses to have children then the absence from work will put them as a disadvantage wrt their peers. There is simply no way for an employer can give "credit" for work that was not done. The most an employer can do is ensure that a comparable job with the same salary is available on return and offer flexibility in working hours to allow parents to juggle family commitments.

Edited August 4, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

What if everyone decided to quit having babys?

Every other living organism would probably conclude that it's about time.

[On Guard for Thee]

People not having babies very simply results in an ageing population, such as we have here in Canada. That means labor shortages and more people on pensions with less people footing the bill. If you only look as far as the end of your nose and make it restrictive for people to have families it comes down to a "pay me now, or pay me (a whole lot more) later"

[On Guard for Thee]

Every other living organism would probably conclude that it's about time.

Yes I imagine there are more than a few species who would gladly see us go.

[Hal 9000]

Maternity & paternity leave are not 'holidays'.

They are a contribution to the greater good for our society. Children are a necessity for our society to continue.

People cannot legally be punished, passed over for promotion, etc. for taking parental leave.

.

.

No one is punishing anybody, but promotions (in private/non-union/non governmental jobs) are given based on work and experience. Can you justify giving a promotion to someone who was just off for a year over someone who has worked that entire year - Yes or No?

[Shady]

 

It is a word she uses to describe people who form rational positions based on logic and analysis rather than her preferred way of forming positions based on irrational ideological preconceptions

Maybe the same way conservatives dinosaurs do?

Please stop with the name calling. It's against forum rules.

[Bob Macadoo]

ame="On Guard for Thee" post="985719" timestamp="1407117125"] 

Please stop with the name calling. It's against forum rules.

But patronizing baiting is cool though right? Just checkin'.

[Hal 9000]

But patronizing baiting is cool though right? Just checkin'.

Actually, i think baiting is OK.

[On Guard for Thee]

Bait away then. You may not get a lot of bites.

[cybercoma]

And why would fewer women want to enter the field? It's not like lobster fishing or something where there's physical barriers. What I'm saying is gender is a factor in these things long before (but also right up to) they make the choice to apply.

You're never going to explain it in a way that he will understand when he has already determined that inequality doesn't exist. Nevermind that we dress little girls in pink from the time they're born and give them toys, books, and cartoons that tell them they're princesses and their only role is to attract a man and serve him by cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Nevermind that boys are put in blue and are taught to be rough and tumble and their toys, books, and cartoons are about how they're adventuring, labouring, hardworking, and industrious. None of those things matter if someone believes the sexes are "equal but different." They can't tie the outcomes of more physical, sexual, mental violence against women from their spouses and boyfriends to that early childhood indoctrination. They can't tie the outcomes of women having more precarious work and often leaving the workforce to raise children because they're taught to rely on a spouse to provide for them to that early childhood indoctrination. Those differences don't matter when someone thinks that they're equal differences, even though they are quite obviously not.

[cybercoma]

A woman takes a year off to have a baby. ... Does it negate ... her experience she has attained so far?

It doesn't negate her existing experience, but it's 1 year less experience on the job when she returns. Would she be eligible for the same raise as someone that worked throughout that year? Probably not in some places.

[cybercoma]

Well, of course they won't get that 4% raise while they were off having a baby. I get that. I'm not that unrealistic, but other than that, women on maternity leave should not be restricted in any way towards future promotions etc.

Because they took a year off they are restricted from future promotions and won't be earning as much as a man who takes no time off. That's the issue. Why aren't more men taking parental leave instead? Why is it almost always the women that stay home with the children? Some say it's because they want to, but why do they want to? Is it biologically necessary? Not with the myriad products that are out there to care for a newborn. A father could just as easily stay home and care for that child in the first year. But we're programming that expectation into our children with the kinds of toys and media that are available to them and the kind of behaviours we reward in them. In any case, as it is, women do take more time off because they're usually the ones to go on maternity leave. This can have nothing but an adverse affect on their future earnings potential and their promotability. Should it? I'm not really sure. Ideally the solution is to encourage a more even distribution of men and women going on parental leave.

Edited August 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

They can't tie the outcomes of more physical, sexual, mental violence against women from their spouses and boyfriends to that early childhood indoctrination.

Yet at the same time you can argue with a straight face that a young boy who wants to dress up in girls clothing and play with dolls is that way because of his biological nature and should be taught that self mutilation is the way to happiness?

If gender identities are biologically based then you must accept that there are differences between men and women which are innate and are not taught. If gender identities are entirely a function of environment then you must accept that gender disphoria in children with normal biological sex expression is something that is taught.

My guess is you will come up with some convoluted BS on why choice of clothing is biological but choice of career is not.

[Hal 9000]

If a guy is off work for a year on a WCB claim, I can guarantee that he will not be the one promoted over the employee who was working for that same period of time - regardless of wether it's a man or woman that he's competing with. If he did get promoted over a woman who had been working that full year, you can expect cries of sexism though.

[Shady]

It's all part of our decaying society where everyone thinks that actions don't have consequences. And that doing what you want, like having children, will involve no sacrifice at all, in any other areas of your life.

[eyeball]

It's all part of our decaying society where everyone thinks that actions don't have consequences. And that doing what you want, like having children, will involve no sacrifice at all, in any other areas of your life.

If society is decaying it's because people are imitating the shining beacons that are showing the way forward.

[WestCoastRunner]

It's all part of our decaying society where everyone thinks that actions don't have consequences. And that doing what you want, like having children, will involve no sacrifice at all, in any other areas of your life.

Talk about a broad generalized statement. A decaying society? Parents think having children involves no sacrifice? Parents are foolish enough to go ahead and raise a family knowing it will have a great impact on their finances, their freedom, increased responsibility, but think no sacrifice is involved? Just how many parents do you know?

[Wilber]

You're never going to explain it in a way that he will understand when he has already determined that inequality doesn't exist. Nevermind that we dress little girls in pink from the time they're born and give them toys, books, and cartoons that tell them they're princesses and their only role is to attract a man and serve him by cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Nevermind that boys are put in blue and are taught to be rough and tumble and their toys, books, and cartoons are about how they're adventuring, labouring, hardworking, and industrious. None of those things matter if someone believes the sexes are "equal but different." They can't tie the outcomes of more physical, sexual, mental violence against women from their spouses and boyfriends to that early childhood indoctrination. They can't tie the outcomes of women having more precarious work and often leaving the workforce to raise children because they're taught to rely on a spouse to provide for them to that early childhood indoctrination. Those differences don't matter when someone thinks that they're equal differences, even though they are quite obviously not.

I think that is changing. My daughter competed against boys in equestrian events and she QB'd the girls football team in high school. Both my grand daughters are competing against boys in 4H and both play rugby.

[Hal 9000]

Talk about a broad generalized statement. A decaying society? Parents think having children involves no sacrifice? Parents are foolish enough to go ahead and raise a family knowing it will have a great impact on their finances, their freedom, increased responsibility, but think no sacrifice is involved? Just how many parents do you know?

Everything a person says or does comes with a price - everything... and people have to weigh out wether that price is something they will pay. Unfortunately, society is raising a generation of people who have decided that they don't want to pay that price, and figures society and the government should pay that price for them instead.

If I want to make big money, I have to leave my family and go to Alberta or up north somewhere - that's a price I pay.

If I want to spend more time at home with my family, I make less money and don't have as nice of things - That's also a price I pay

If you want to live on welfare, it'll cost you some dignity

As a woman - if you work 60 hours a week, many women will call you a bad mother, if you stay at home, the rest will look down on you for "just" being a mom - those are prices

If a man works hard, he's neglectful, if he doesn't work - society calls him a neglectful bum - those are prices

If I want to eat at McDonalds every day, I'll pay a price for that

If I buy a new car, the price is financial

If I holiday a lot, I won't be able to buy a new car

If a woman whores herself out, she'll pay with her conscience

If I stay single, i can have my Harley, but the price will be having no love of a wife and kids

If I marry, I'll have the love of a family (hopefully), but sorry, have to sell the bike

If I'm an alcoholic or junkie - it'll cost me my family

If you rob or kill someone, you'll pay with your time

If I second guess my boss, I'll pay by missing out on raises and promotions

If I cheat on my wife, It'll cost me my marriage

If I have kids, it'll cost me freedom and potential earnings at work...If it does't, It'll cost me the love of my kids

You want freedom, you give up safety. You want safety, you give up privacy

Every decision you make comes with a price tag - every single one. There is no "consequence free" life.

Those people who fight consequences are simply putting those prices on the rest of society - because they do have to be paid.

[WestCoastRunner]

Everything a person says or does comes with a price - everything... and people have to weigh out wether that price is something they will pay.

Every decision you make comes with a price tag - every single one. There is no "consequence free" life.

Those people who fight consequences are simply putting those prices on the rest of society - because they do have to be paid.

Um, I agree. Not sure why you are quoting my post in your response.