Men and Women equal? No, never.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there some other program you had in mind, whereby people are "paid to have kids"? The FMLA and short term disability are the most direct examples of programs that could be construed as such - and short term disability is the only type of paid maternity leave offered federally. In the case of someone using both FMLA and short term disability the person making a "withdrawal" if you will, is likely to be paying more into the system then short term dis is going to pay out to them (so no, you aren't paying for my wife's maternity leave..lol, she is - though I'm sure that there's somebody somewhere who you can put that one on). The FMLA side of it is more legal protection.

All of this centers on programs that are relevant to the notion, of course, that it's okay to discriminate because somehow, by not doing so, you will be forced to pay - as an employer- for your employees pregnancy or maternity leave. Not in the US.

(IIRC btw, we do actually pay out for drug addicts who - as a consequence of their drug addictions, end up disabled- and of course we have plenty of federally and state funded rehab this and thats -and yes, I'm okay with that)

[Whateverist]

In case I'm accused of sexism ..

That would be putting too fine a point on it. You are such a disappointment as a human being that singling out your sexism hardly seems necessary. Of course you are nauseating but I can no more blame you for that than I could an open sewer.

[Shell B]

Is there some other program you had in mind, whereby people are "paid to have kids"? The FMLA and short term disability are the most direct examples of programs that could be construed as such - and short term disability is the only type of paid maternity leave offered federally.

You cherrypicked four words out of all of my posts. I was speaking about businesses paying people to have kids, which was in direct response to the OP. How you got that far off, I have no idea. Of course, I did add that I do not think the government should pay people to take time off to care for their kids. The only reason why we have to is because parents do not plan for kids very well. And, yes, we have to. WIC, public health care, government subsidized daycare, etc.

In the case of someone using both FMLA and short term disability the person making a "withdrawal" if you will, is likely to be paying more into the system then short term dis is going to pay out to them (so no, you aren't paying for my wife's maternity leave..lol, she is - though I'm sure that there's somebody somewhere who you can put that one on). The FMLA side of it is more legal protection.

By making that "withdrawal," said person pays less into other programs and everyone else makes up the difference. Want to have kids you can't afford to have? Here, let me pay to pave the roads for ya, then.

Not in the US.

(CA: 6 weeks 55%, District of Columbia: Requires employers to provide workers with paid days of absence,[29] NJ: 6 weeks 66%, PR: 8 weeks 100%, HI: 58%, NY: 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#America

Yeah, cause Kentucky or wherever you are is "the US."

(IIRC btw, we do actually pay out for drug addicts who - as a consequence of their drug addictions, end up disabled- and of course we have plenty of federally and state funded rehab this and thats -and yes, I'm okay with that)

Yes, paying for rehab. Yes, paying for disability. Do we pay for them to take time off to indulge a decision they could not afford to make? Not in the same sense.

No matter how you slice it, if you are taking money from somewhere else to get time off to suckle your kid, you are getting paid to have that kid in some way or another. Do I blame people for taking up the offer? Nope. Do I imagine I would be more responsible? Yep, and I have been thusfar. Mind you, people in my family have had kids before they could afford to and I love those kids to death. Love their parents too. That doesn't mean I do not think we breed a world standard that it is okay to have as many kids as you fucking want because someone will pay for them and for you to take more time off work than is really necessary. Overpopulation? Yep. Making having kids easier than it would be naturally? Yep. Kind of a contradiction in practice.

[The Grand Nudger]

You cherrypicked four words out of all of my posts. I was speaking about businesses paying people to have kids, which was in direct response to the OP. How you got that far off, I have no idea. Of course, I did add that I do not think the government should pay people to take time off to care for their kids. The only reason why we have to is because parents do not plan for kids very well. And, yes, we have to. WIC, public health care, government subsidized daycare, etc.

I thought that those words pretty much summed up what you had a problem with. I'm sorry if I made it seem like there was any other reason, or failed to communicate something there? I don;t think businesses should have to pay employees to have children either, and here they don't. You won't get paid by either program for taking time off to care for your child, all that FMLA affords there is assurance that if some medical emergency arises that means you have to leave work to care for your kid - they can't terminate you on those grounds. Disability might apply, but that would depend on whether or not the child qualified. EIC, public healthcare, subsidized daycare, these are all programs to enhance the wellbeing of children, not to pay their parents for having them, or taking care of them.

By making that "withdrawal," said person pays less into other programs and everyone else makes up the difference. Want to have kids you can't afford to have? Here, let me pay to pave the roads for ya, then.

Why thank you, I'll continue to supply the labor you'll need to repave them. Perhaps my children will do away with the need for them. Assuming that some medical condition doesn't prevent us from being able to earn enough money to properly take care of them - at which point you'll end up paying more - as they end up wards of the state or in prisons. Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#America

Yeah, cause Kentucky or wherever you are is "the US."

Read a few pages back, where I mentioned that any additional state laws are the states own business, and hopefully we wouldn't be arguing with a states rights to pass a law. There is no federal requirement, there is nothing that says -if in the US, you must pay for maternity leave- by the only people who are authorized to make such a statement.

Current United States maternity leave policy is directed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) which includes a provision mandating 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of newborn or newly adopted children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_l...ted_States

You stopped digging when you thought you found what you hoped to find Shell, sorry. That wiki you linked...directed to this - in the stats box.....That's all that's mandated by the US, that's the sum total of federal involvement in the issue. End of. Paid medical leave - under which maternity leave can fall, by the by, in those few states that decided to make additions - covers a bit more than -just- maternity leave. But hey, you don;t like it -don;t do business there. Again, when you incorporate in a state - when you operate a business in a state - you are agreeing to follow that states laws - so even here...no one..is being forced...to do...anything. That point cannot possibly be driven home hard enough.

Yes, paying for rehab. Yes, paying for disability. Do we pay for them to take time off to indulge a decision they could not afford to make? Not in the same sense.

Delivery is a major medical procedure, recovery from which can be classified as a temporary disability. FMLA protects you from being fired - short term disability pays out - wait for it- because you are temporarily disabled.

No matter how you slice it, if you are taking money from somewhere else to get time off to suckle your kid, you are getting paid to have that kid in some way or another. Do I blame people for taking up the offer? Nope. Do I imagine I would be more responsible? Yep, and I have been thusfar. Mind you, people in my family have had kids before they could afford to and I love those kids to death. Love their parents too. That doesn't mean I do not think we breed a world standard that it is okay to have as many kids as you fucking want because someone will pay for them and for you to take more time off work than is really necessary. Overpopulation? Yep. Making having kids easier than it would be naturally? Yep. Kind of a contradiction in practice.

Neither program has anything to do with paying people to suckle their kids. So.........

[Shell B]

I thought that those words pretty much summed up what you had a problem with.

Yeah, but on any level. You added the federal government part which sums up your entire argument and has nothing to do with mine.

Why thank you, I'll continue to supply the labor you'll need to repave them.

Do you get paid for that or do it to pay back whatever government assistance you got? Do not get me wrong. I do not think you should have to. I'm just pointing out the gaping hole in your earlier statement.

Assuming that some medical condition doesn't prevent us from being able to earn enough money to properly take care of them - at which point you'll end up paying more - as they end up wards of the state or in prisons. Enjoy.

Derp. What does that have to do with anything? Essentially saying that you could get disabled and make me have to pay more for your children really does nothing to negate the fact that I shouldn't have to put in a dime for anyone's parental leave. Does not mean I would not if given the choice. It just means I should not have to and neither should a business.

Read a few pages back, where I mentioned that any additional state laws are the states own business, and hopefully we wouldn't be arguing with a states rights to pass a law.

Given that we live in two separate states, I'm quite surprised that you expected my initial argument to have anything to do with yours and why in the hell would this be an argument about state's rights to pass laws? This is about anyone, anywhere, for any level of government, paying for maternity leave involuntarily.

There is no federal requirement, there is nothing that says -if in the US, you must pay for maternity leave- by the only people who are authorized to make such a statement.

Who said there was? No one, so, um, I'm still not sure why you are hanging onto this other than that it is the only level at which there is no requirement at all.

You stopped digging when you thought you found what you hoped to find Shell, sorry.

No, Rhythm. I am aware of that. It just is completely irrelevant as you keep getting stuck on the whole "people in the United States" thing when that had fuckall to do with it. No one, anywhere, for any reason. Get it?

That wiki you linked...directed to this - in the stats box.....That's all that's mandated by the US, that's the sum total of federal involvement in the issue. End of.

No one cares about this. You are arguing a straw man and wasting your time.

Again, when you incorporate in a state - when you operate a business in a state - you are agreeing to follow that states laws - so even here...no one..is being forced...to do...anything. That point cannot possibly be driven home hard enough.

It can be made too much, as it is a retarded point. This is not a country nor are any of the states places where laws cannot be changed when people disagree with them. "Like it or move" is an ignorant perspective. Always has been. "Can't speak English. Get out." is pretty fucking similar.

Delivery is a major medical procedure, recovery from which can be classified as a temporary disability. FMLA protects you from being fired - short term disability pays out - wait for it- because you are temporarily disabled.

No it is not. Most women are up and at 'em in days. It can be complicated, do not get me wrong, but if there are no complications, it is not major, at all.

Neither program has anything to do with paying people to suckle their kids. So.........

You're the only one pigeon holing it into those two programs because it suits your argument. The fact that anywhere else in the world or even in this country does it differently does not seem to register what.so.ever. Weird.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, but on any level. You added the federal government part which sums up your entire argument and has nothing to do with mine.

I've been talking about the federal government the entire time, and made that clear pages ago.

Do you get paid for that or do it to pay back whatever government assistance you got? Do not get me wrong. I do not think you should have to. I'm just pointing out the gaping hole in your earlier statement.

Unfortunately, lol, no, I'm always looking to sell my kids, but I'm told that this is incredibly illegal.

Derp. What does that have to do with anything? Essentially saying that you could get disabled and make me have to pay more for your children really does nothing to negate the fact that I shouldn't have to put in a dime for anyone's parental leave.

Do you? No.

Does not mean I would not if given the choice. It just means I should not have to and neither should a business.

Do they? No.

Given that we live in two separate states, I'm quite surprised that you expected my initial argument to have anything to do with yours and why in the hell would this be an argument about state's rights to pass laws? This is about anyone, anywhere, for any level of government, paying for maternity leave involuntarily.

I thought it had something to do with mine because you quoted my comments. That's reasonable, isn't it? In any case you're in luck, because no one at any level of government pays for maternity leave - in those states that have medical leave modifications over and above those that exist in federal law it is the employer - who has chosen to operate a business in those ares (and has an onus to understand those laws he has decided to start a business subject to) who pays - at a reduced rate.

Who said there was? No one, so, um, I'm still not sure why you are hanging onto this other than that it is the only level at which there is no requirement at all.

Well, certainly not me, and Shell, since you want to press it, name the states with paid leave requirements-describe those paid leave requirements. Count them up, then read back through anything I've posted...and see where any of that information doesn't line up side to side?

No, Rhythm. I am aware of that. It just is completely irrelevant as you keep getting stuck on the whole "people in the United States" thing when that had fuckall to do with it. No one, anywhere, for any reason. Get it?

Actually if you'll read back - you might notice that I posed the question..under our system, our law, here in the US, why would an employer find reason or justification to discriminate based upon an applicants pregnancy or maternal leave. I made allowances that the laws were different elsewhere.

No one cares about this. You are arguing a straw man and wasting your time.

So it would seem.

It can be made too much, as it is a retarded point. This is not a country nor are any of the states places where laws cannot be changed when people disagree with them. "Like it or move" is an ignorant perspective. Always has been. "Can't speak English. Get out." is pretty fucking similar.

Tell me, whats retarded about the requirement for a business owner to understand those laws which affect his business, or weigh that in when deciding to start a business, or where to locate that business? If you don't like the laws -you- don't have to move - you have to move -your fucking business-. Really simple - and that's exactly how it's done. If you have reason to believe that you, as a business owner, couldn't or wouldn't follow the laws applicable to your business in the jurisdiction your business is located in - you need a different business model, or you shouldn't be operating a fucking business. Again - simple.

No it is not. Most women are up and at 'em in days. It can be complicated, do not get me wrong, but if there are no complications, it is not major, at all.

You do realize that delivery - even without complication- is classified as major surgery, do you not? It's not an issue of how good we are at it or how often it goes off without a hitch.

You're the only one pigeon holing it into those two programs because it suits your argument. The fact that anywhere else in the world or even in this country does it differently does not seem to register what.so.ever. Weird.

Because those are the -only- two programs that are mandatory here, in the US - that have any analogues to the justification offered by Mo - for discrimination based on pregnancy. Neither of which gives us any reason or justification for discrimination - based upon the justification he offered.

How much of this thread did you actually read?

[Whateverist]

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.

[Shell B]

Let's clear this up. You may have been talking about the feds the whole time, but your first post was a response to me and I was not talking about the feds. Therefore, these pages that you want to insinuate that I did not read have been a massive waste of time all based on your first strawman. Hate to break it to you, buddy, but I did read it and you have been arguing with the scarecrow for quite some time. I'm not going to waste more of my time trying to make that clear. Sorry. If you want to only make statements about the feds, then you are not debating with me, since that is not, nor was it ever, my argument. I suppose you'll have to find someone who actually thinks the feds mandate paid maternity leave because that is not me. What a silly thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's clear this up. You may have been talking about the feds the whole time, but your first post was a response to me and I was not talking about the feds. Therefore, these pages that you want to insinuate that I did not read have been a massive waste of time all based on your first strawman. Hate to break it to you, buddy, but I did read it and you have been arguing with the scarecrow for quite some time. I'm not going to waste more of my time trying to make that clear. Sorry. If you want to only make statements about the feds, then you are not debating with me, since that is not, nor was it ever, my argument. I suppose you'll have to find someone who actually thinks the feds mandate paid maternity leave because that is not me. What a silly thread.

A response in which I explicitly stated that the vast majority of it was directed at Mo ...........

---

Since we're clearing anything at all up, Shell. There are 5 states that have paid leave addendums- of any kind. 5 (if you can find more, then good- I can't). No one forces anyone to operate a business in any of these states. No one has to subject themselves to these laws. You can operate a business in the vast majority o the us without ever having to deal with this (and theres good reason to do exactly this) This is not the situation that Mo is apparently in where he's at.

I'm not throwing my support behind those laws - I think they blow. But trying to draw any comparison between the US -at any level- and the situation that Mo presented us with -as an example of some demonstrated inequality between men and women mind you....is unworkable.

If anything useful came from whatever misunderstanding arose here, for me anyway, it's that I approached this in the wrong way for Mo. I should have mentioned that the sort of discrimination he was describing was discrimination based upon a reasonable expectation of monetary loss - not something limited to a female applicant, and so definitely not any example of how men were "just better" for something - or a reason to hire a man over a woman on that count.

[Violet]

Hmm. I couldn't get past the part where the woman is not going to be doing anything for a year. A woman actually does not have to be out for more than a week when she gives birth. Maternity leave is rarely as long as a year and few jobs require so much physical labor that a woman cannot do the job. In fact, few shop jobs even require heavy lifting. We have machines for that.

Not that she hasn't recovered enough in a week to apply leverage and get the job done even IF heavy lifting is involved.

Hydraulic jacks are fucking awesome, by the way. Totally fucking awesome.

---

When you say men and women aren't equal I take it you mean men and women aren't equal in different industries, in general most men will be suitable for certain jobs and women will be better at other jobs?

Boy, wouldn't it be great if you understood that this applied to other things, mentioned in other threads

Yeah yeah... I'll keep dreaming.

---

*Michael Winner.

Penis envy? I don't envy you that little maggot you have.

You don't know what got me fired up? Did you read the shit you wrote? Stupid cunt...

First you tell him he's got a small cock, then you tell him that he's got a brain in his vagina

Maybe he's a hermaphrodite...?

---

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.

How could he possibly have a citation for something that never even happened?

Hmmm... do you do anything constructive with your time here, or do you spend every other post attempting to insult people? Take Shell... she insults people often, but at least it's clearly an insult to the person she's insulting.

Learn from the Shell She may lack for creativity, but she knows what she's doing. Usually

---

Well, I think this has already been said, but wouldn't this be more thoroughly cementing strict gender roles? I don't think many people want that.

But yet, some people do want that.

Women totally got the sugar side of the candy from my perspective, oh how I'd have loved to have been born 60 years ago (with a vagina please) to abuse the living hell out of that position

---

Hey guess what? I'M FEMALE. On top of that I am not here to receive medals from your sexist ass.

But I'll bet you happily wear every medal given to you by his sexist brain. Bitches love them sexist brains

---

I don't give a shit what you are, what the hell do I care whether or not you're female? You're just another anonymous internet character who likes to bullshit around and pretend they're doing a service to the world. Get a fucking life.

I wonder then: how one does do a service to (for?) the world? I wasn't aware one couldn't be both anonymous and a servant of the world.

It's not too terribly hard to get a fucking life, you've just got to bounce into that pretty yellow '?' block! It looks like this:



And then you've gotta get lucky.

---

Yeah, prove I'm here to do a service to the world. Hint: you can't.

You don't think your opinion is valuable to the world?

A pity, that.

---

Against male maternity leave? Why?

Because he's for male paternity leave instead

Although, this really does raise an interesting question: can a man be a mother, and a woman be a father?

Actually, that's the most interesting thing out of this thread yet, and I'd love to talk about it ^_^ That's seriously a subject which we could all learn a lot in... nailing down what precisely motherhood and fatherhood are (I would consider this to a a 2-definitioner, the first a biological simplicity, the latter a foundational teacher and supporter of their protege).

But then, maybe the former is more than a biological simplicity (mom/dad, step-fathers and step-mothers), and I'm sure there's a better way to phrase the latter, but I am sleepy X_X

---

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.

Because being unable to spare a lot of time for a year or three means they don't intend to take care of them? Are they not providing for the child a safe and secure home? Are they not providing for the child healthy food and drink? Are they not tucking the child in at night, responding to its cries during their resting hours, and spending some of their precious little time at home with the child? Are they not providing for the child transportation to and from a person who can take care of the child in their stead as they go to work so as to provide for the child these other blessings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwjNBjqR-c

I mean hell... public school is a mass daycare, are you about to tell me that it REALLY pisses you off that children spend at least 6 hours a day away from home (school day is some horrendous hours like 7:30AM until 14:30, 7 hours where I come from, and a half hour bus ride each way)... or does this nonsense only apply to babies?

If it only applies to babies (newborn ones, at that): why the arbitration?

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?

Grow a really gnarly long bear. I mean, I'm sure you could apply some sort of super-cool scientific product... but if they're doing the same: their beard is gonna be WAY bigger.

Probably not what either of you are looking for, of course... but let me tell you this: if I had the choice to remove my facial hair, or to have SRS... I'm picking the removal of facial hair. It'll be an immediate choice too. I do not know how men stand those things. TT__TT

---

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.

Because gay men and women don't ever want babies?

Okay.