(May 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm)mo66 Wrote: There's a biological reason; a mother naturally suckles the child whereas fathers do not have something similar.

And here's a modern medical marvel what eliminates this: Baby formula.

Quote: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.

Correct food intake... chocolate pickled cucumbers dipped in ketchup. Maybe I'm missing something here.

You carry the thing for 9 months, and you get a year off? PAID? Fuck yeah, I'd get pregnant every chance I could get. And you want to give me MORE paid time off?

If I got a couple of days off for every serious difficulty I've ever had to go through, and got a week for every strenuous physical task with some life-threatening elements to it I've ever survived... I should at least have 40 years of paid time off of work by now

Quote: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.

No sacrifice on the father's part? Sounds like a horrible relationship for the ladyfriend. Maybe fathers shouldn't get any time with their children at all... after all: they sacrificed next-to-nothing to make these children, all they deserve is a picture of their child and maybe a potted plant.

Wouldn't want to unfairly suggest that they have any say in matters pertaining to the children they assisted in the development of, would we?

When I saw the title of this thread I knew it was gonna be good, but boy, I didn't think it would be this good.

Although, the worst thing this Mo fella has done is attribute a fantastic quote to David Cameron, when credit should have been given to the great Michael Winner. What an abortion of a mistake.

(May 15, 2013 at 1:23 am)whateverist Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 12:43 am)Rhythm Wrote: How much of this thread did you actually read?

Probably read at least as much of it as I did, a case of damning through faint praise if ever there was one.

Aye, yer a trooper.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 5:16 am)frankiej Wrote: Although, the worst thing this Mo fella has done is attribute a fantastic quote to David Cameron, when credit should have been given to the great Michael Winner. What an abortion of a mistake.

Bah, it doesn't matter so much who says it, as how it's used. It was kinda cute, so a kudos he receives from me. Especially considering what he responded to XD Ahahaha ^_^

The bold's amusing too. I bet I could google who said it if I wasn't about to pass out

(May 15, 2013 at 3:59 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 7:53 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I believe when he said the woman is not going to be doing anything for a year he was referring to UK maternity leave, which is paid leave for upto a year. Most women take the whole year, but some only take 6 months because the pay goes down half-way through.

Suddenly, I know why Tiberius is always going on about misandry 0.o If that's true, then that's absolutely psychotic.

Not that I personally understand the idea of 'paid leave'. Sounds like it's meant as a social safety net for when you get injured... but I think that could be more easily granted through socialism (maybe try a mixed charity-socialism? Where if charity isn't there sufficiently for them, the society will pay the remainder as a tax?). If it's getting used like this... well: I would never hire a female with any reasonable chance of becoming/being pregnant.

I can understand paid leave up to a point. If you have a really good employee, and they get ill through no fault of their own, it makes sense to keep them on the payroll so they can resume their work (with no ill feelings) when they get better. Mandatory maternity leave pay is ridiculous though. Sure, it's nice when a company does do it, but they shouldn't be obliged to pay for something that is the result of an active choice by the employee (most of the time).

(May 14, 2013 at 8:55 pm)Cinjin Wrote: 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.)

You'd rank a war criminal ahead of two people who probably didn't kill anyone (as far as I'm aware)? So would you rank Goebels ahead of yourself since he was one of the leaders of the Third Reich? Your morality is a little fucked up.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 7:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 3:59 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Suddenly, I know why Tiberius is always going on about misandry 0.o If that's true, then that's absolutely psychotic.

Not that I personally understand the idea of 'paid leave'. Sounds like it's meant as a social safety net for when you get injured... but I think that could be more easily granted through socialism (maybe try a mixed charity-socialism? Where if charity isn't there sufficiently for them, the society will pay the remainder as a tax?). If it's getting used like this... well: I would never hire a female with any reasonable chance of becoming/being pregnant.

I can understand paid leave up to a point. If you have a really good employee, and they get ill through no fault of their own, it makes sense to keep them on the payroll so they can resume their work (with no ill feelings) when they get better. Mandatory maternity leave pay is ridiculous though. Sure, it's nice when a company does do it, but they shouldn't be obliged to pay for something that is the result of an active choice by the employee (most of the time).

Yes I agree in principle, but you can understand the rational behind it. Women by their very nature will be worse off than Men without mandatory maternity leave, Men can have children without needing to be pregnant and taking time off, but women cannot. How else are we as a society going to have children if we penalize every career-driven woman who actually wants to have a child? Bottom line is children need to be born one way or the other, and I can see why the UK govt believes that women shouldn't be penalized for it (although they regularly are anyway).

So only rich people should be able to have a baby? Eveyone else should quit their jobs and raise their kids on benefits? That's a LOVELY sentiment.

By penalized you mean; doesn't get paid for -not- working..........? Or just ; doesn't get to call into work to, you know, have a baby?

(May 15, 2013 at 7:28 am)Rhythm Wrote: By penalized you mean; doesn't get paid for -not- working..........? Or just ; doesn't get to call into work to, you know, have a baby?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Tell me; what incentive does a woman who wants a career have if she's going to be told to fuck off without pay the minute she falls pregnant? Do you want a country of stay-at-home mums living off the taxpayer or do you want women to work as well?

This would be a good time to introduce this idea... How about when a woman (or man) decides to leave her/his career to have kids? What happens when the kids don't need a full-time stay-at-home parent and the parent wants to go back to work, but can't get a job due to a 7 year gap in their résumé?? What about allowable gaps for taking time away to raise kids? Having kids is detrimental to the career of a parent who stays home. It seems to me, if society values parents staying home, then these types of gaps should be deemed acceptable, but they're not. So long as the person has the required skills for the position, gaps shouldn't weigh in to their ability to get a job.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:36 am)mo66 Wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Tell me; what incentive does a woman who wants a career have if she's going to be told to fuck off without pay the minute she falls pregnant? Do you want a country of stay-at-home mums living off the taxpayer or do you want women to work as well?

Plenty of them, apparently. This is the situation here - though we don't usually tell pregnant women to fuck off. We use gentler words. They still seem to be joining the workforce and pursuing careers. We have both, and others not covered under either category. What I personally want is so far afield of anything in this conversation it hardly bears any relevance. I'm one of those filthy hardcore commie types.

What those incentives are, I imagine, are the same as the incentives for any man - but hey, we could ask around.