An employer doesn't have to pay maternity pay. But all mothers are entitled to maternity pay. We have statutory maternity pay for women who can't get it from their employer.

I'm all for one parent taking a year off work to look after a new baby. It really really pisses me off when people stick their newborn babies in childcare and never see them. It is so unhealthy for such a young baby to spend more time with strangers than their parents. They shouldn't have a baby if they have no intention of taking care of them.

---

Mo, excluding activities that require the use of genitals, what do you think you can you do because you are a man that I cannot do because I am a woman?

If maternity leave is a problem, then businesses should discriminate against straight people instead of women. It's because you breeders can't keep it in your pants or USE FUCKING BIRTH CONTROL that we have so many damn babies being born in the world, and need someone to stay home and watch them. So irresponsible. So stupid.

(May 14, 2013 at 8:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: Against male maternity leave? Why?

There's a biological reason; a mother naturally suckles the child whereas fathers do not have something similar. Also, the baby is born out of the mother, not the father, so after carrying the baby 9 months, going through difficulty in terms of providing the correct food intake etc. and then giving birth to the child only to spend a couple of months with him/her? I don't think so. the mother should get a full year at least. The father doesn't do any of that, why the hell should they get time off? They didn't carry the baby nor give birth. There is no sense of sacrifice that the father done which establishes his relationship with the child from a physical point of view. Again, this is just my opinion and I'm speaking in generalities.

I seem to remember sleep deprivation effecting both my husband and I when our boys were newborns and woke every 4 hours to eat...

(May 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: An employer doesn't have to pay maternity pay. But all mothers are entitled to maternity pay. We have statutory maternity pay for women who can't get it from their employer.

I'm all for one parent taking a year off work to look after a new baby. It really really pisses me off when people stick their newborn babies in childcare and never see them. It is so unhealthy for such a young baby to spend more time with strangers than their parents. They shouldn't have a baby if they have no intention of taking care of them.

---

Mo, excluding activities that require the use of genitals, what do you think you can you do because you are a man that I cannot do because I am a woman?

I prefer to speak in generalities because using specifics, in particular ourselves, in such a delicate topic might lead to personal vendettas, injured feelings etc. I have given some examples already of discrimination that does exist in the real world because of the different attributes of the two genders. If you're seeking a utopian world of full equality, it's never going to happen, there's a reason why Usain Bolt is only allowed to compete against men in the Olympics and it's not because women are inferior. It's because women are not capable of competing in that particular attribute or sub section of life. But who gave birth to Usain Bolt? A woman. So all I'm saying is that comparing men and women is like comparing apples and oranges, sometimes you cannot use the measuring stick metaphorically (but in the Olympics it's literal; the same measuring stick or measuring scale isn't used in the Olympics).

Depends on what you think makes someone "better."

These are common things that most people think make a person better than another:
Intelligence, beauty, strength, speed, agility, cunning, coolness, swagger, confidence, humor, wealth, family, clothes, jewelry, hair ... right on down to the brand of the cell phone you carry. In order to demonstrate this, I will post the following four pictures and let you know that, without meeting or talking to these people, I automatically assume the person in the photo immediately below the previous is better (not equal) to the previous.




Yeah you're right. We're not at all equal ... but that has nothing to do with what one carries between their legs.
I personally know many men who don't hold a candle to a few of the women I know. (And vice verse.)

(May 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Shell B Wrote: Well, I know maternity leave can be that long, but it does not have to be. Also, I'm not sure about the UK, but you usually do not get benefits for any kind of leave until you have been employed for a sufficient amount of time. I mean, a company should not have to pay a woman maternity leave if she has worked there for only a few months.

Don't know if you've ever had occassion to check the laws..but , the only thing guaranteed federally as far as pay is concerned is FMLA - which is a short term disability payment -not- handed out by the employer. The header of our civil rights act (title 4) that covers maternity leave does not stipulate that a company pay an employee while they are on maternity leave - but that they have assurance that their job - or a commensurate job - will be waiting when they return from maternity leave. This leave is confined on all sides not by the woman's choice in how many days to take off - but I shit you not, by a doctors note. Similarly, the header that handles this does not prevent an employer from turning down an applicant if their pregnancy will prevent them from performing the stated duties of the position. Any and all states laws additional to this are obviously something I know nothing about - but if a person -does- decide to operate a business they are agreeing to follow all applicable laws (in return for the protection those laws afford them)- so there's really nothing to bitch about...after you've decided to start a business in an area. You don't like the laws? Move a county over.

Now, if the company has a policy of paid maternity leave, that's not forcing an employer into anything. If someone uses paid vacation days, that's not forcing an employer to do anything.

You gave me the impetus Shell but obviously this is mostly for Mo, who likes to speak in generalities - because they pass through the sphincter more easily.

More directly for you Mo. I understand that the laws here may not be the same as the laws there, but it's worth mentioning. So tell me why, in our system - one should discriminate based on sex or is justified in doing so?

Meh. I never really like the "You don't like it, move out" argument. It's lame, at best. Anyway, I'm more for a stay at home parent situation than a make someone else pay for you to have kids mentality. Paid maternity leave should only be for the time you are actually physically incapable of working, unless you have a great employer that voluntarily offers you the time with pay. Guaranteed to get the job back after a period? Sure. Someone paying for you to have a kid? Fuck no. Sorry, but that is absurd. It's not a disability. It is a life choice.

(May 14, 2013 at 9:36 pm)Shell B Wrote: Meh. I never really like the "You don't like it, move out" argument. It's lame, at best.

"You don't like my product, go across the street to the other guys store" Government sanction and protection of commerce is a two way street, and essentially they're (the gov) offering a service themselves. It's not as though we aren't extremely permissive either. Despite operating a business in Kentucky I was incorporated in Nevada. Cheaper.

Quote:Anyway, I'm more for a stay at home parent situation than a make someone else pay for you to have kids mentality. Paid maternity leave should only be for the time you are actually physically incapable of working, unless you have a great employer that voluntarily offers you the time with pay.

That's exactly what FMLA is. It isn't a vacation rebate program. If, by the by, an employer offers you the time off with pay that has to be reported to FMLA admins...because they can drastically reduce or outright terminate any payment to you in that event.

Quote:Guaranteed to get the job back after a period? Sure.

Quote:Someone paying for you to have a kid? Fuck no. Sorry, but that is absurd. It's not a disability. It is a life choice.

No complications, no condition, no FMLA. make too much money? No FMLA monetary assistance. Not being able to stand or sit upright, excessive bleeding.....that's a temp dis - or a medical condition...covered under FMLA. If, for example, my leg was severely wounded because I made the "life decision" to be a lumberjack- I'd also get FMLA protection and/or assistance while I was laid up. As soon as I wasn't, I wouldn't. FMLA also extends to the care of a loved one, say your kid is diagnosed with a horrible illness, months to live. You get to take that time off to care for them without worrying that you'll become further destitute (you're already broke from seeing specialists, naturally) for doing so.

---

I mean, as far as anything that might be called a scheme to get someone else to pay for ones lifes decisions - for whatever reason- FMLA has to be the least onerous possible example. That's all I'm trying to express Shell.

Lemme give you a real world example. My wife went out for 6 weeks on FMLA, C-section. She also got short term disability, $600 dollars worth of it for 6 weeks. Talk about living high on the government dole, subsidizing our child birthing habits and life decisions, amiright? Last time she also went out on FMLA, 4 weeks, no short term disability payments.

But, you are the one using the FMLA as an example, Rhythm, not me. I'm confused because you are arguing something I didn't argue against. :S

Doesn't matter if it is high living. In my opinion, people who cannot afford to have babies should not. Do I think we should police who can have kids? Fuck no. Do I think it is my business and that I should make any move to stop anyone from doing such a thing? No. Do I think the government or my taxes should pay anyone for being pregnant and having a baby? Hell fucking no. If I want to support someone for having a kid, I'll make that decision myself, thank you very much. Nonetheless, I do agree with you on actual disability, as in complications. That is not being pregnant, that is getting ill. Exactly the same if you are injured on the job. Do you think we should pay people who make a decision at home to be a drug addict, which is far more disabling than pregnancy in many cases? Sorry, bud, but we were basically paying your wife to take time off so you can expand your brood. I'm not saying you shouldn't take advantage of what is there, but piss poor planning is not my problem and all that, amirite?