Wow, paid maternity leave??

[ericlp]

nonono... Our attitude in the USA is... Got a job? Don't have a baby.. But do drugs? Have no job? Low life Loser? Your on Section 8? Food Stamps? SSI?

So, why would you need leave if you don't have a job to leave???? Makes sense?

 

[nehalem256]

Men have shorter lives, greater risk of heart disease, cancer, violence, aggression, and getting my female employees pregnant.

I will not hire men. Why do they think they deserve more pay just because they get prostate cancer?

Men's health insurance is cheaper.

Seriously guys, these arguments are ridiculous. Women get pregnant. No one is forcing any business to provide paid maternity leave and if you can look me straight faced and say "I'd pass on a qualified female candidate in her early 30's and take someone less qualified or a worse fit so I can avoid potential maternity leave" you're a complete buffoon and a poor, poor businessman. You don't pass on the right candidate that fills a need of your business because they MIGHT someday get pregnant and be out for 6-8 weeks to recover and care for their new baby.

Well going by the examples earlier you mean 6-12 months.

Jesus folks....

"Save up enough money so you can pay for your own maternity leave!"

99% of the people that say this wouldn't be here if their parents followed that rule.

Proud member of the 1%

"Maternity leave means the woman is being paid more than her male counterpart! Sexism!"

So you are saying it is only sexism if women are the ones losing out?

Men have more health problems than women and cost employers more in health care costs. Men get in more car accidents. Men create more liability issues for employers via sexual harassment. The list goes on.

That is a blatant lie. It costs more to insure women then men for health care. In fact this is one of the thngs Obamacare is suppose to "fix"; making men subsidize the health care costs of single women.

 

[nehalem256]

1 - a woman who wants to have (or has) a child is a feminist?

The idea that women need to have a career is a feminist idea. I have no idea where you got you idea from.

2 - Bringing up a child reasonably decently is actually a benefit to society. Helping people do that up to a point obviously increases the chance of that benefit to society.

You pay for other people's choices and misfortunes all the time, in most forms of insurance and in taxes. When you need help, others do the same for you. Get over it, or perhaps you should research methods of becoming even more selfish than you already are; you know, really embrace your meaner side.

Expecting other people to pay for you life choices is selfish. You appear to be confused what selfishness is.

If I went outside and lite my car on fire and then demanded Progressive buy me a new one that would be called insurance fraud.

Its funny how the idea of equal pay for equal work goes out the window when we are talking about adding benefits for women.

 

[buckshot24]

You acknowledge that it's good for the child to have more one-on-one time, yet you say 6 months is ridiculous, because how many months is the maximum the child needs exactly?

6 months of paid maternity leave is ridiculous IMO. What I think the kid needs is entirely irrelevant. Personally, I think its better for a parent to stay home to care for the child if you must know.

You then go on to suggest that parents should be forced into doing something, which isn't what this is about at all. This doesn't force them to do anything, it gives them extra flexibility.

You were saying its better for society if we give mother's 6 months of maternity leave. I said its better for society if a parent stays home so using the same line of reasoning you were using for maternity leave we should mandate that a parent stays at home with their kid for the betterment of society.

 

[nehalem256]

You acknowledge that it's good for the child to have more one-on-one time, yet you say 6 months is ridiculous, because how many months is the maximum the child needs exactly?

If it is so good for children to have a parent stay home with them aren't you really saying that we should go back to the time where only one parent worked?

Something that would on a practical level mean dropping the idea of encouraging women to have careers?

 

[mikeymikec]

6 months of paid maternity leave is ridiculous IMO.

You've said this a few times and yet you haven't added any further substance to your argument yet.

What I think the kid needs is entirely irrelevant. Personally, I think its better for a parent to stay home to care for the child if you must know.

These two sentences conflict. If the kid's needs are entirely irrelevant, then why do you think it is better for a parent to stay home to care for the child?

You were saying its better for society if we give mother's 6 months of maternity leave. I said its better for society if a parent stays home so using the same line of reasoning you were using for maternity leave we should mandate that a parent stays at home with their kid for the betterment of society.

So basically you're advocating that if parents don't want to do things your way, screw them. I think giving parents more options / greater flexibility is likely to improve the end result.

If it is so good for children to have a parent stay home with them aren't you really saying that we should go back to the time where only one parent worked?

Something that would on a practical level mean dropping the idea of encouraging women to have careers?

If you had read the thread you would have found that I've answered your questions at least once.

The idea that women need to have a career is a feminist idea. I have no idea where you got you idea from.

You said here, "I have a disdain for feminists who expect me to pay for their ideology.". Since there is no correlation between feminists and women who want to have children, I took you up on that point. In fact, many feminists shun the idea of having children because they feel that by having children, they would living up to stereotypical, outdated expectations of women. Also of course, some feminists are men.

I find your ideas about a woman's role in society quite amusing. In circles outside of yours, there is quite a lot of debate about what the definition of a feminist is these days, because some battles have been won and hopefully the topics of those battles are generally considered to be normal views to hold, not strictly "feminist", that it's time for the definition to move on as well. However, when I encounter people like you, where your utopia is likely to be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtaaW3UFZA

It makes me wonder whether those battles have really been won, or perhaps there will always be a few staunch-wannabe-cavemen around.

If you want to start your own discussion about the role of a woman in society, go ahead, but I won't take you up on your absurd views on the topic here because it might de-rail this one.

The rest of the points you've made in that post have already been countered in this thread.

 

[StinkyPinky]

This is why retards are breeding in the US. They're the only ones that can afford to.

I'll never choose work over my kids. I know I have been passed up for promotions etc because of it, but I don't care. Spending time with your children is vital.

 

[actuarial]

The idea that women need to have a career is a feminist idea. I have no idea where you got you idea from.

1. While it may have been put forward by feminists, the idea that women should be allowed in the workplace is one of equality.
2. Maternity leave specifically is a program that encourages women to stay home and raise children. Feminism not found.

Its funny how the idea of equal pay for equal work goes out the window when we are talking about adding benefits for women.

So offer paternity benefits too if your concern truly is equality. That is equal pay for equal work.

 

[nehalem256]

1. While it may have been put forward by feminists, the idea that women should be allowed in the workplace is one of equality.

The idea that women need to have a career is a feminist idea. I have no idea where you got you idea from.

You will note I said nothing about women being allowed to work. I said the idea that women need to have a career.

The difference between the 2 statements should be obvious. And jumping between the idea that women should be allowed in the workplace(which I support) to one of men should pay so that women can have careers is pretty giant.

2. Maternity leave specifically is a program that encourages women to stay home and raise children. Feminism not found.

Still, Sharon Lerner recently suggested that we might be able to pass a national paid leave law by 2019. Here’s hoping.

Update: Just noticed this map was posted while ago, but still–we should be talking about the sad state of US maternity leave all the time until it changes!

http://feministing.com/2013/01/10/map-of-the-day-the-state-of-maternity-leave-around-the-world/

Is that why feminists are one of its biggest supporters?

So offer paternity benefits too if your concern truly is equality. That is equal pay for equal work.

In some countries the do offer them. Or even better mandate they be used. Why? So that women will not be disadvantaged in their career.

 

[nehalem256]

So basically you're advocating that if parents don't want to do things your way, screw them. I think giving parents more options / greater flexibility is likely to improve the end result.

Life is about choices. Sorry if the choices you support require extorting money from other people to be workable.

You said here, "I have a disdain for feminists who expect me to pay for their ideology.". Since there is no correlation between feminists and women who want to have children, I took you up on that point. In fact, many feminists shun the idea of having children because they feel that by having children, they would living up to stereotypical, outdated expectations of women. Also of course, some feminists are men..

But there is a correlation between women wanting to have careers AND children. Notice the AND.

 

[child of wonder]

The idea that women need to have a career is a feminist idea. I have no idea where you got you idea from.

That's hilarious.

Women can need or simply want to have a career for a variety of reasons. One of which being that they'd like to do something with their lives outside of clean the house and take care of kids.

I've told my wife that even though I make enough to easily support the entire family, I'm happy she's chosen to pursue a career in nursing. I wouldn't allow her to simply sit at home all day and be a housewife. What would she do in 9 years after our children were grown up and gone? She'd have no skills, no experience, or any other relevant abilities to pursue a career with. Her only option would be to go to college in her 40s, try to start a career in her late 40s, then work a little more than 10 years before we retire.

Women, surprisingly, are human beings with their own hopes and dreams. I couldn't imagine how depressing it would be, as a male, to have my fate relegated per my biology as a sperm donor only.

Your mother wasn't born so that she could birth you into existence. I can't imagine anyone's purpose being to bring someone as despicable and foolish as you into the world.

That's the last I'll ever read your inane, meaningless, mean spirited, sophomoric, ignorant, and convoluted posts again.

 

[DCal430]

Holy cow, not sure if the BBC is accurate or not, but it appears that in the US, our attitude is "fuck the children. Screw families. Profit profit profit."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22688596 Just one more reason wealth keeps getting concentrated at the top.

Many states if not most have guaranteed paid maternity leave. California does.

 

[mikeymikec]

Life is about choices. Sorry if the choices you support require extorting money from other people to be workable.

So you're against any sort of taxation or insurance I assume? Because those are exactly what you've just described (aside from your hyperbolic use of verbs).

But there is a correlation between women wanting to have careers AND children. Notice the AND.

That's about as significant as saying that there's an 'i' in 'pie'. It still has nothing to do with feminism. The only correlation I can see in that sentence is that procreation requires a woman to have a child, whether she has a career or not.

I've told my wife that even though I make enough to easily support the entire family, I'm happy she's chosen to pursue a career in nursing. I wouldn't allow her to simply sit at home all day and be a housewife. What would she do in 9 years after our children were grown up and gone? She'd have no skills, no experience, or any other relevant abilities to pursue a career with.

Careful, you'll be giving this woman ideas above her station!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Note to nehalem256: This is not an educational video.

 

[buckshot24]

You've said this a few times and yet you haven't added any further substance to your argument yet.

Paying a woman (hell, anybody) 6 months for doing nothing for your business is ridiculous.

These two sentences conflict. If the kid's needs are entirely irrelevant, then why do you think it is better for a parent to stay home to care for the child?

I didn't say that. I said what I think the kids need is irrelevant.

So basically you're advocating that if parents don't want to do things your way, screw them. I think giving parents more options / greater flexibility is likely to improve the end result.

Are you fucking dense? I don't want any mandates. I really don't care if a business decides to give 6 months of maternity leave, that is their business. Personally, I think 6 months is ridiculous. I'm against paying anybody 6 months for doing nothing but if a business decides to do that then fine.

I suggested a mandate based on your reasoning that 6 months is better for society. If one on one time is better for a child then lets mandate one parent stay home all the time (not work) so society would be better off.

 

[Veliko]

Are you fucking dense? I don't want any mandates. I really don't care if a business decides to give 6 months of maternity leave, that is their business. Personally, I think 6 months is ridiculous. I'm against paying anybody 6 months for doing nothing but if a business decides to do that then fine.

No-one is suggesting that anyone is paid for doing nothing - at what point can raising a child be considered 'doing nothing'?

 

[buckshot24]

No-one is suggesting that anyone is paid for doing nothing - at what point can raising a child be considered 'doing nothing'?

Quit being a twat.

 

[Veliko]

You first.

 

[buckshot24]

You first.

You're deliberately saying something you know I didn't mean. You're being a twat.

 

[Veliko]

And you're taking a deliberately narrow view of why maternity leave exists and who benefits from it. You're being a twat.

 

[Sea Ray]

Paid maternity leave is just another entitlement that liberals and Europeans love so much. Let's hope America still stands up to those cradle to grave entitlement loving folks

 

[Subyman]

Obviously the people that are for paying an employee for 6 months without them contributing to your business aren't business owners. Businesses don't magically have a bunch of money. They pay people to do work, which, hopefully allows the business to make money. When a person is not working, but is taking money it hurts everyone that is a part of the business. Depending on the size of the business, it could be unsustainable.

The fact is, when you are paying someone to take care of their child for 6 months, you also have to pay someone else to do the job of the person that is on leave. Effectively, you are paying double for the same amount of work.

Securing their job for when they can come back is one thing. Giving them a few weeks of paid leave is one thing. Paying for months of childcare is not the business's responsibility.

 

[Veliko]

Obviously the people that are for paying an employee for 6 months without them contributing to your business aren't business owners.

A fallacy.

Businesses don't magically have a bunch of money. They pay people to do work, which, hopefully allows the business to make money. When a person is not working, but is taking money it hurts everyone that is a part of the business. Depending on the size of the business, it could be unsustainable.

The fact is, when you are paying someone to take care of their child for 6 months, you also have to pay someone else to do the job of the person that is on leave. Effectively, you are paying double for the same amount of work.

Securing their job for when they can come back is one thing. Giving them a few weeks of paid leave is one thing. Paying for months of childcare is not the business's responsibility.

This has been covered in this thread already.

A business can only exist whilst society exists and society benefits from giving mothers paid maternity leave.

Where society benefits, a business also benefits.

So yes, a business has to bear part of the costs and burdens for maintaining a healthy society.

 

[nehalem256]

So you're against any sort of taxation or insurance I assume? Because those are exactly what you've just described (aside from your hyperbolic use of verbs).

I am against paying for other people's lifestyle. CHOICES. Getting cancer is not a lifestyle choice. Getting run by another car is not a lifestyle choice

Choosing to have kids and a career is a lifestyle choice. Insurance is meant to pay for things you don't plan on happening.

And you also do realize how selfish you are being. If I can choose to raise kids on 1 salary. Then it shouldn't be too hard for another couple to raise kids on say 1.6x my salary (assuming a woman has 2 kids in 5 years taking off an entire year for each).

Well unless you feel you are entitled to twice my lifestyle that is. Which would be wait for... the height of selfishness.

 

[nehalem256]

No-one is suggesting that anyone is paid for doing nothing - at what point can raising a child be considered 'doing nothing'?

So what you are saying is people don't like children and they are nothing but a burden...

Because really that is the only way what you are saying makes sense.

I mean technically taking a 6 month vacation is doing something. But I don't expect to get paid for that.

So the question is are children a net positive for your life or not. Apparently liberals believe they are not.

 

[mikeymikec]

Paying a woman (hell, anybody) 6 months for doing nothing for your business is ridiculous.

Yes, I understood your feelings the first five times you said it. If you don't have anything interesting to add, can this be the last time you say this please?

I didn't say that. I said what I think the kids need is irrelevant.

I'm missing the distinction. Obviously you're giving your opinion, not some pronouncement that results in your word becoming law.

Are you fucking dense?

No, I was expecting a constructive argument from you instead of you repeating yourself endlessly.

I suggested a mandate based on your reasoning that 6 months is better for society. If one on one time is better for a child then lets mandate one parent stay home all the time (not work) so society would be better off.

'Mandate' as in give permission to or the other definition, as an order? The former is hardly necessary, the latter we already talked about and you called me dense.

Is anyone else getting a distinct sense of déjà vu here?


@ Sea Ray

Keep up the rhetoric!

@ Subyman

I run a business. As Veliko has already said, the rest of the points you made have already been countered.

I am against paying for other people's lifestyle. CHOICES. Getting cancer is not a lifestyle choice. Getting run by another car is not a lifestyle choice

Not strictly speaking, but lifestyle choices can and definitely are factors most of the time in both of your examples. If someone does something idiotic and emergency services are involved, your tax contributions are paying for that. The amount that insurance companies have to pay out every year are part of their expenses and everyones' insurance contributions are affected by that. If a load of people in your street buy flashy cars and attract thieves, your insurance contributions go up. Face it, you're paying for peoples' lifestyle choices all the time, and others are probably paying for yours unless you never get sick, never have an accident, or your actions never directly or indirectly contribute to those events for other people.

And you also do realize how selfish you are being.

How exactly am I being selfish?

If I can choose to raise kids on 1 salary. Then it shouldn't be too hard for another couple to raise kids on say 1.6x my salary (assuming a woman has 2 kids in 5 years taking off an entire year for each).

This point has been addressed repeatedly on this thread already.

Well unless you feel you are entitled to twice my lifestyle that is. Which would be wait for... the height of selfishness.

Where did this come from? Ah, you made it up.