What is Digg?183 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -16/+266It's upside down land. I think every BushCo or GOP official is told to do the exact opposite of their job description:
* Foley, legislating Child Protection = Foley solicits pages
* Tobias, promoting Abstinence = Tobias hires prostitutes
* Rumsfeld heads Defense = instigates war, fails to achieve peace, degrades armed forces.
* Rice heads State = won’t conduct diplomacy — “it sends the wrong message.”
* Gonzales heads Justice = “constitution, treaties are quaint, meaningless.”
* Bush as Commander in Chief = “I do what the Generals want.”
* Cheney, with no official duties except to survive = runs government from secret bunker, has heart condition that could kill him at any moment.
Now the domestic policy adviser thinks "domestic policy" means "moms stay home."
I think we need to now investigate the IRS commissioner for tax evasion, the Secretary of Treasury for counterfeiting, and the Secretary of Health for the 2001 anthrax attacks. You think I’m kidding? - moman, on 10/11/2007, -8/+114@EntropyMan
Jon Stewart (of the Daily Show) put it quite nicely (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If this administration could, they would put Captain Ahab (from Moby Dick) in charge of save the whales" - 11arrows, on 10/11/2007, -44/+75Sounds like a perfect match for this administration. What else to you suspect from the grandson of a Nazi Bank president.
- meshgiath, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22@ mouseclone
King James didn't translate the Bible. He hired 47 scholars to work in 6 committees to translate the books.
Anyone who thinks that translating from one language to another will yield perfect accuracy in concept and message is a fool anyway. - snoonan77, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Don't F with the ULM.
- tituspullo71, on 10/11/2007, -10/+29ever work with a pregnant woman? it sucks you have to do all their work and yours (when they go on leave), they almost always quit, and never give notice they just use up their paid leave and never return. this sounds harsh but there is truth in it.
- dougbell, on 10/11/2007, -25/+43They don't just get pregnant and leave....
They take 4 months of maternity leave forcing other people in the office to pick up that slack, all the while saying they will come back. The office hasn't looked for a replacement because she said she'd come back, and then the day that maternity leave (and paycheck) runs out they quit saying they want to be a "stay at home mom".
This is one of the primary reasons women only make .75 on the dollar compared to a man. - imnojezus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Wow, warrzie... really?
- JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Warrzie,
Sure they can. Didn't you see the movie Junior? No? I'm the only one? Yeah, okay. Sorry. - snoonan77, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23Gave birth? Yeah, I'd be pissed too.
- theBlackPickle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I think this guy is definitely loopy, but there are areas of my city that you simply can't go into if you are white. Before I get labeled as a racist let me say that there are many areas in the deep south that you can't go into if you are a person of color.
That is simply a fact. I wish things weren't that way but they are. - lOvOl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Will probably get dug down for this, but I really think our culture needs to look at the consequences of having all of our young women in the work force, rather than bearing children and raising them. The maternity leave comments are really a red herring for a larger issue western civilization needs to look at.
A woman's prime child bearing years are from their early teens to about age 25 and then things go downhill from there pretty fast, especially after age 30 (check wikipedia for "Fertility" if you don't believe me). The older the mother, the higher the chances of birth defects such as down syndrome, autism, etc. In fact, this carries over generationally in terms of the fitness of a child as you are more likely to have birth defects if either of your grandmothers conceived your mother or father at an early age. This is due to the fact that as people age, they incur more genetic mutations in their DNA, including the DNA in their germline cells. Now, thanks to sexual reproduction, corrupted DNA is usually filtered out after several generations as the good copy of a gene will get passed on while bad copies don't (too many bad copies and you have severe birth defects which either results in outright infertility or lots of miscarriages). However, too many mutations in too short a period of time and you now have a generation of people who are less fit than their parents.
The Flynn Effect has been observed in every generation up until the most recent generations in the westernized world where average IQ has actually decreased. One theory (besides the ones like toxins in the food supply, or other environmental problems) for this is that the children are less fit because in westernized nations, women are having their children at a later and later age. Autism is at epidemic levels in the United States (1 out of 150) and women having children at later and later ages is possibly a major cause of this.
Call me old fashioned, but in terms of our priorities, I think it is far more important for women to get married and have families at a young age for reasons stated above. Once all the kids are in school, then perhaps that would be a great time for a woman to start her post-secondary education and career because she will not have any interruptions along the way. Right now, women get started in their career at a young age, hit 30, become desperate to find a husband or at least a sucker willing to pay child support, and after bearing children they take several years off of work where their skills soon become outdated and obsolete if they ever go back to work full-time at all. Either that, or they end up as a career gal with a closet full of shoes, but an empty womb and usually an unfulfilled life (some women dislike children, but they are a very small minority).
Western Europe is below replacement rate (around 1.5 children) and so are the westernized asian countries like South Korea and Japan. In the United States, the caucasian birth rate is about 1.5 as well which has created a demographic change that will be huge in the coming years as over 50% of children under age 5 are minorities. In other words, people of European descent around the world are committing auto-genocide and the main culprit is that western civilization does not have its priorities straight when it comes to the role of women. Women only have a short window in their lifetime to bear children so it is insane we teach our young girls to want to be "career gals" before being mothers, when they could become a career gal for the rest of their lives after raising a family, but not the other way around. Yes there are women having children into their forties now and there are new fertility technologies like IVF, but the risks increase dramatically for every year a woman puts off starting a family and to think that each generation is becoming progressively less fit because of the average age of motherhood increasing every year is sad because the world, and in particular the western world, doesn't have to be that way.
I am not saying women should be barred from the workplace or that women have nothing to contribute in the professional world, however, if western civilization does not get its priorities straight, then the math suggests it will cease to exist within a few generations. - mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -2/+141 month is normal? Nowhere I've ever seen is less than 6 weeks, and 12 is pretty common. Four isn't very usual in the US, but if most places weren't so silly about letting people use sick/medical time before your maternity/paternity leave then 4 months wouldn't be unusual at all.
It's not uncommon in Europe for people to get 6+ months, and they let Dads take 6 months after Mom does as well. Plus, they typically get paid for all or part of that time, anywhere from 50% to 100% of their regular salary (or sometimes a flat rate dictated by the state). If you look at the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave we have the crappiest parental leave of any country in the world, bar none. Pretty much every other developed (or even semi-developed) nation in the world has guaranteed paid leave, and we get NOTHING. Family values my ass. - BoneheadFarker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14@awboy666
Just because someone decides to have a kid, they should give up their life and career? Or miss out on the first part of their child's life just because their employer wants them to work? This is what maternity leave is meant for...to protect people's jobs from ***** who would fire them just because they had a kid. If a father takes time off for the same reason, should he be forced to quit his job? Or is it only women who should be forced to quit? Should women just stay home, and not bother looking for a career? Should women merely be the homemakers/breeding vessel? That kind of attitude should have died long ago... - Thepirateking, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10four months is extreme? Glad I don't live in the states. Here in Canada, Mat leave is one year. My wife is a temp hired in to cover someone's mat leave, and we're expecting another kid in october, and I'm entitled to taking some time off too if I want. I expect I'll take a couple of weeks off at least to spend time with my new child and enjoy that new baby time.
But hey, I guess in the states they don't want you to be spending time with your kids huh? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15Uhhh women didn't really enter the professional work force until the late 70's. Why is it so hard to imagine that sentiments such as the ones carried by Zinsmeister still exist?
- thenativeraver, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15http://www.twistedmindz.co.uk/images/capslock.jpg
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17i wouldnt hire a woman for the same reasons. Its a pain to have people out for maternity leave when I could just hire a man and not have to worry about that. Its not sexist, its biological, lol.
- humperdeath, on 10/11/2007, -21/+30Its sad, but true. The law says you cannot discriminate based on pregnancey and related conditions, but if your job depends on you to be there, and you are gone for 4 months, then what's the employer to do? To be fair, I would make all new hires sign a work contract, that says if you require a leave FOR ANY REASON that lasts more than 4 weeks, you must go on short term disability. Whe you can return, you MAY be required to show you can still perform your assigned duties.
Not only do women take a long maternity leave, but then they are 'privaledged' to leave early to pick up kids, stay home with sick children, take them to piano lessons, little league, etc etc. It's no wonder women get paid 30% less then men, they work 30% less hours! - bobcatred, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10"What's wrong with saying that maternity leave causes issues at corporations? You can't just up and find a replacement for someone, especially in higher positions."
How does 4-6 months warning require a company to "up and find a replacement?" Legally you're only required to give an employer two weeks notice to find a replacement if you quit. I'd say maternity leave generally involves significantly more notice.
And the Family and Medical Leave Act gives her the right to take up to 3 months for maternity leave. If she took longer than that, he needed to deal with that woman personally, rather than choosing to deny employment to anyone who happens to have a uterus for fear that it might happen again. That article even mentions the law that makes that hiring practice illegal.
It might be interesting for you to note that by the wording of the FMLA, men could take those same 3 months off for the birth of a child:
SEC. 102. LEAVE REQUIREMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.--
(1) ENTITLEMENT TO LEAVE.--Subject to section 103, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following:
(A) Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
* (a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that--
(1) the number of single-parent households and two-parent households in which the single parent or both parents work is increasing significantly;
(2) it is important for the development of children and the family unit that fathers and mothers be able to participate in early childrearing and the care of family members who have serious health conditions; - Thepirateking, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@isaiah1112
I'm a man and I've taken days off for sick kids. I take sick days when I need them, that's what they are there for. But then again I also take vacation, and have been known to skip a day of work due to being "sick of work". OTOH I'm also found spending extra hours in the office after everyone else has left if I have work that needs done. Just because you're a workaholic doesn't mean the rest of us are. - andy3109, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14continued...
Holding a womens job is justifiable (as they do with service men and women). However, paying her for work not performed is unfair to the business. - JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13Interesting how liberal posts during the day are because we're unemployed but when he posts a comment, well, he must be defending liberty, I guess.
- juicelyn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9This article is obviously going to raise very heated arguments, so I figured that, as a woman, I might as well post my feelings about it too. Even if I'll be dugg down for them.
@ All the men that agree with this article:
The thing I can't even fathom is that you think that you might possibly know, for even a second, what the experience of caring for a child is like for the mother, as it is something that is a distinctly different experience for the mother and the father.
How about you try carrying another human being for nine months and live through the incredibly taxing and painful experience of giving birth? Once you have any ***** clue as to what that is like, I will gladly listen to you talk all day about this issue. But for now, I'll stick to the fact that you have absolutely ZERO idea with regards to what you're talking about.
Four months is too long for maternity leave? I can't imagine the last time I was so appalled. Have you ever heard of post-partum depression? Oh, that's right! You have no ***** idea what that's like!
Who's going to care for the baby after it's born? Oh RIGHT, I forgot that there's a free babysitting/nanny service that runs for working mothers and fathers! Even for those that can afford it, maybe it's just me, but it was kind of nice for me to know my mother when I was growing up! She quit her job to raise four kids, and she's an incredible woman. If she hadn't been so involved in my life, I'd be a completely different person. Maybe one who actually took your *****.
But wait, I guess you're right! Instead of taking time off from work and making everyone else work more, or, horror of horrors, hiring a temp, women should think twice about bringing people like you into this world. There's always abortion, right?
Your mothers should be ***** ashamed of you for thinking, let alone writing, this narrow-minded, sexist, archaic *****.
/rant - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Considering that according to the FMLA they could have her fired for taking 4-months of leave. All the FMLA authorizes is 3.
- BoneheadFarker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10In Canada, maternity leave is 1 year. This can be split between the parents (mother takes 9 months, father 3; or mother takes 6 months as well as the father; etc). The benefits are paid by the government, so the employer is not on the hook for their wages. If it's a properly run company, this shouldn't be an issue. One month is a joke...this is your child, you probably want to spend as much time as possible with them for the first part of their lives, not throw them to some nanny while you go back to work...
- scispaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Actually the woman picks up the tab. Maternity leave is not required to be paid.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11The title of this topic is a generization...but mostly true. I've experienced it many times myself in the workplace. Maternity leave DOES cause all kinds of logistical issues in corporations. Co-workers have to pick up their tasks. Sometimes they just don't come back causing management to re-hire or for co-workers to permanently pick up their tasks. When they do come back they are often gone or leaving work early because of child issues. Again, causing co-workers to do their jobs for them much of the time.
- BoneheadFarker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@awboy666
Ok...you've got a girlfriend with a 3.7 GPA from a "top 20 university", and she doesn't even think women should be allowed to vote? Does she think she shouldn't be allowed to drive or own property too? Why would she even bother going to university, let alone high school, if she only plans on being a homemaker? Something doesn't add up here... - BoneheadFarker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@tacklebox
Uh...men can take paternity leave. You're not really avoiding anything...
@isaiah1112
The only problem with that argument is that would remove a large portion of the workforce, reducing the amount of money people have, reducing the amount of things they buy, reducing the economy in general. People are going to have sex and get pregnant whether they work or not... - sbader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Men are allowed paternity leave too.
- walkingdogs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8As I reply from my corporate office as an IT professional. Maybe it's because your party forgot where they laid their land mines and are stepping on them every day.
- Starfoxy7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6All this whole thing does is highlight how the current work/business set up is anti-human. Humans have kids, humans get sick, humans need breaks, and anyone who does any of those things get severely punished by the system as it currently stands. A business that invests in families, good health, and mental well being for it's employees-- all things that improve the quality of an entire society-- is punished by the market and the tax codes. The only way to get ahead, or even survive, is to supress your humanity, tear down everyone around you, and rob future generations. Cooperative, forward-looking practices that would build a happy society are incompatible with this paradigm.
Business owners don't want human employees, they want robots, and unfortunately getting pregnant is about the most human thing a person can do. - AWBoy666, on 10/11/2007, -16/+21What's wrong with saying that maternity leave causes issues at corporations? You can't just up and find a replacement for someone, especially in higher positions. Not to mention: how is the woman supposed to magically resume her job and all of its requirements after 4 months of being gone?
4 months is also highly excessive maternity leave. 1 month is normal, 2 is pushing it. 4 is unnecessary.
And the thing about the soccer games: My guess is that he was her supervisor. Bosses get to do those kind of things, underlings do not. What's the issue? - wbeavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"The Bush administration has a track record of using pregnancy as an excuse to not hire women."
Is that a backhanded stab at Condi??? - eatbeefjerky, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12@humperdeath and tituspollo:
I don't know where you work that every woman with children can take extra time out of the day to take the kids somewhere without sacrificing her vacation time, sick days, or having to work extra hours, but I don't know of any places like that and I'm one of four kids. My mom's always had to use her own time off or work extra hours if we needed to go somewhere when she was at work.
As far as women taking maternity leave, it's not that much different than ANYONE taking a leave of absence. Happens all the time. If you don't like it, then may I suggest helping prevent overpopulation and not banging your women OR perhaps getting a vasectomy? - andy3109, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Everyone thinks there shouldn't be laws against firing women who demand maternity leave. However, who picks up the bill when women take all this time off? Thats right, the business. If you own a small business, hiring someone to replace a women on maternity leave while still paying the women her salary is more than unfair.
My only quarrel is that the women is still making money while dealing with something in her personal life (something non-related to work). I believe perhaps the financial management should be placed on the family who decides to have a baby and not on the company who employs her. - mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Men are entitled to the same leave as women in the US. You get 12 weeks of unpaid leave during the 12 months following the birth or adoption of a child. That's the law.
- jacinth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@ lOvOl
You say that a women has a choice to either have a family or have a career, but that she cannot have both at the same time.
I ask you to consider whether or not it would be beneficial to change the corporate/business culture so that it would be possible for both men AND women to be able to have a family and a career at the same time. Having a career/job can give a person great satisfaction that isn't available from the family life (outside peer validation, contribution to society through work, monetary gain, etc.). These validations aren't better or worse than those from having a family; they're different, but no less satisfying or fulfilling. There is no reason why a woman should be denied the chance to experience both at the same time.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone in general to have policy in place so that there is more balance between work and family life? Do people honestly want to be workaholics where they spend hours and hours at work, leaving less time for themselves and their loved ones? How does that help the employer in the long run if their employees get burned out quicker and feel animosity towards their jobs? Do men really take pride in the fact that they don't take any time off and like to play the "I-work-more-hours-than-you" game? Really? That's the kind of father you wish to be? Minimal time with your family because of hours at work? Why not a corporate/business model where both men AND women are encouraged to be fulfilled outside of the office so that their work is of higher quality inside? Why not create an atmosphere where it isn't dinged against you to take care of your family, whether you're a man or a woman. And, as people have pointed out but many have chosen to ignore, the FLMA includes men in its language so that they can take paternity leave as well. Who's on their deathbed wishing that they've spent more hours at work?
For many many people, it is economically unfeasible to live in today's society without dual incomes. Many women don't have the choice between being a stay-at-home mom or having a job/career. Say all you want about people shouldn't be allowed to have kids until they have X,Y, and Z, but in actuality you have to pass through more hoops to get your drivers license than to pop out kids.
As to your argument that a woman's prime reproductive years are earlier in life, the same goes for men. While men can continue to produce sperm late into their lives, the quality of the sperm certainly degrades. Your arguments about genetic mutations in the germlines aren't limited to just half of the population. So why are you blaming the increase incidence of autism on only older mothers, when there has also be a marked increase the number of older fathers? If producing healthy offspring should be the utmost priority, as you seem to suggest, then wouldn't it make sense for both men AND women (not just women) to have families at a young age, have both daddy and mommy be a part of their children's lives, then go and have successful careers as soon as they are school age? Granted, this would mean a radical change in U.S. society's family model (offspring stay with their parents until they begin their own careers after having their own offspring), but that would result in the healthiest and well adjusted next generation, yes? Maybe that's the solution, going back to a multi-generational family model.
Look, I know realistically that many families cannot get by on anything less than two incomes. Many don't have the luxury of choosing between a job/career and staying home to raise the family. But that is a separate issue of economics, not about women (and men!) being allowed to take maternity or paternity leave. - akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Is he suggesting women should stop getting pregnant or women should just stop working? Either one is a lose/lose situation.
The issue is when women take advantage of the situation, either by choice or because they are required to. Some women are prescribed "bed rest" and have complications during pregnancy. This will extend them beyond 1 or 2 months maternity leave to 3 or 4. Some women take advantage of the situation. If you hired a woman who is unscrupulous and collects the paycheck only to convert to a "stay at home mom" it is your fault for being a poor judge of character. It's like the guy who slips on a puddle of coffee in the break room and claims workman's comp for a year. - Gruesome, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You moron...do you even know how much daycare COSTS for two kids? Mine are mostly grown now, but ten years ago I was paying over $700 a MONTH for full-time care for two children. I am divorced (never remarried), and yes, it was hard. The question was: Do I stay in a bad marriage for purely financial reasons and f**k my kids up, or amicably divorce the guy and put up with a LOT less money? For me, the answer was the amicable divorce. I've got one kid in college now and I get along wonderfully with my ex and his wife.
It's not always as black and white as you guys paint it, you know. - scispaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I know people who take 6 weeks of *paternity* leave. A newborn infant takes a lot of time, energy and lost sleep to keep alive and healthy. It isn't like at 1 month the kid can make his own grilled cheese sandwich. You you know how long it takes a healthy infant to sit up on it's own?
- yutowu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The government can't be Big Brother but companies can? What would be next? Sign a contract who I can date, when I can marry? Why should a company be allowed to say when I can have children? Of course, I don't have to sign up with that company but what if all companies felt the need to control their employees' lives so they can make maximum profit? Just listen to Big brother?
- andy3109, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4haha I love Canada...free health care and unlimited vacations. How is Canada not bankrupt?
- amowls, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Because every woman wants to get pregnant and have children!
- Starfoxy7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@isaiah1112
And who pays for this woman to be a wife and mother? Her husband? What is she supposed to do when he leaves her with the kids and marries someone else? Live off child support and alimony, if a judge thinks she 'deserves it,' and if her husband decides to actually pay it? Life off welfare and be branded as a welfare queen?
Also, I thought women who got married, got pregnant and decided to let their husbands support them while they stay home with the kids are all money grubbing leeches.
Oh, and if she just plain chooses not to have kids then she's a heartless bitch.
Is there anything a woman can do without bringing hellfire and condemnation on her head? - psyjoniz, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14what a ***** *****.
- sbader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4But they don't have to, and they should be encouraged to take that leave and be Daddies.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5In an America where it takes two people's salaries to remain middle class, his attitude seems hopelessly outdated.
This isn't the 1950s.
Hell, the 1950's weren't even the 1950's of conservative fantasy. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Agree 100%. Its because society is so confused itself, that there are problems with a woman's maternity leave. Society is not terribly fond of women and their ability to have babies. Otherwise, why would abortion exist? Isn't abortion eliminating the baby?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 