[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	please allow me to slap you in the face with a nice big: how the fuck would you know, you've never been pregnant

Because my sister in law came back after a week and was fine. And she did it twice.

Not to mention there are reasons to exaggerate it to parlay sympathy from politicians.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I love the double standard. If women can't work then it's serious. Men can't get the benefits women have and it's a game all of a sudden.

Not having access to gainful unemployment is a serious issue. Thinking women have more points than you? A childish game.

	Right and I'm saying women are equal and shouldn't be allocated more resources. My point is that if they really want equality then give up the ability to give birth which they claim is holding them back to which I say doesn't. Since it doesn't then they don't need to give up giving birth.

How would becoming a sterile female erase sex discrimination?

Quote women who say they should have equal promotion opportunities after missing extended time off work. You keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it, I keep saying it's fiction and you still won't substantiate it.

	What am I claiming? You keep mentioning I'm claiming something but I don't know what it is. Ok great you agree to paternity leave, which means it's something men are not getting? See? Good.

The above issue is the one you keep talking about that isn't real.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not having access to gainful unemployment is a serious issue. Thinking women have more points than you? A childish game. How would becoming a sterile female erase sex discrimination? Quote women who say they should have equal promotion opportunities after missing extended time off work. You keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it, I keep saying it's fiction and you still won't substantiate it. The above issue is the one you keep talking about that isn't real.

So being divorced and being left penniless by the wife is a childish game as well? As well as a bad mother taking away a good father's children? Or a man being accused of rape/abusing a woman when it's him who's the victim? That's what the points add up to.

It's not so much sterility as it is forcing employers to give you extra benefits b/c you're a woman. There's is no discrimination in the workplace, it just costs more to hire a woman than a man b/c of those extra benefits that Feminists asked for. So it's not discriminatory on the workplace's part if a woman costs more! If Feminists didn't ask for those benefits and a woman costs the same as a man, then there's no discrimination! So the choices are: go sterile so there's no way you can have a baby OR get rid of the benefits so that you look the same as a man in the eyes of the workplace OR you give everyone the same benefits so employers don't really have a choice. The most likely scenario is either to give it up or give it to all.

Yea it's fiction. So what's all this cry about no fair in the workplace all about? B/c you want the same pay and benefits of someone who's there all the time; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this.

[Zephyranthes]

	It's not so much sterility as it is forcing employers to give you extra benefits b/c you're a woman. There's is no discrimination in the workplace, it just costs more to hire a woman than a man b/c of those extra benefits that Feminists asked for. So it's not discriminatory on the workplace's part if a woman costs more!

	discrimination [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] dis·crim·i·na·tion noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

If being a woman, a mother, or pregnant gives her less of a chance of being employed or promoted than a man, then it's discrimination. When I have to start telling people the meaning of words, it's usually not a good sign of their argument holding water. It doesn't matter if it costs extra for a woman, she has just as much of a chance as he does, regardless of "benefits".

	If Feminists didn't ask for those benefits and a woman costs the same as a man, then there's no discrimination!

Yeah, those damn feminists, seeking equal opportunity and rights! Why can't they just accept if they want to be "fair and equal" in the workplace, they need to start acting more like men and stop getting pregnant and stuff. What part of this doesn't reek of gender discrimination to you again?

	So the choices are: go sterile so there's no way you can have a baby OR get rid of the benefits so that you look the same as a man in the eyes of the workplace OR you give everyone the same benefits so employers don't really have a choice. The most likely scenario is either to give it up or give it to all.

The most likely scenario is no one is this stupid to think this is a real issue. "Man" is not the equalizing point here, it's not favoritism if you treat a woman like a woman, and a man like a man, but give them equal choices because they are both still human beings. The world doesn't revolve around men, get over it.

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So being divorced and being left penniless by the wife is a childish game as well? As well as a bad mother taking away a good father's children? Or a man being accused of rape/abusing a woman when it's him who's the victim? That's what the points add up to.

This is basically unrelated to her rights and choices as an equal human being, but anyways. Maybe women wouldn't have divorce laws in their favor if they were given the same career opportunities as men, so divorce wouldn't leave them in a position to still need outside (ie yours) income, but that would be too intelligent to do. Maybe if men were so intent on control, sex and power, they wouldn't think it was a good idea to limit careers and moneymaking to favor men, and forcing women to need a man because without one they couldn't support their own life. I have no issue with a woman seeking a divorce from a man who she doesn't feel in love with, whose domineering ways disgust her, even if there are children. It's a sad situation to see children suffer, but forcing a woman to stay with a man she doesn't love is not fair to her either.

It's not a game, but you keep acting like it is, and instead of taking any responsibility, you keep blaming the game (women) like a spoiled, entitled child. That you want to cry over a few months of away time, that would happen only a few times in her entire life time anyways, is extremely immature. It's not her fault a lot of guys are unattractive twits who don't respect or care about her enough to keep her happy in a relationship or marriage, and it's not her problem if you feel powerless around an independent woman that doesn't have to put up with your disrespect and entitlement just because you make the money you are denying her for making herself.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If being a woman, a mother, or pregnant gives her less of a chance of being employed or promoted than a man, then it's discrimination. When I have to start telling people the meaning of words, it's usually not a good sign of their argument holding water. It doesn't matter if it costs extra for a woman, she has just as much of a chance as he does, regardless of "benefits".

What don't you understand that giving the mother maternity leave creates the discrimination. If she was willing to take the time off without pay then there wouldn't be any discrimination b/c then THEYD BE THE SAME AS A MAN, you know equal, like in equality, the same, uniform. How's that for a definition?

Simple example, you show a kid an ice cream cone and an ice cream cone with sprinkles and ask if they're the same and the kid says no (workplace). Then you (as in you) force him to say they are the same by strong arming him. When the simple solution would be to take the sprinkles off one, or put them on the other. Only in some twisted world does some guy look at both and say "oh yes they're the same," and calls foul when someone doesn't agree with him.

Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is basically unrelated to her rights and choices as an equal human being, but anyways. Maybe women wouldn't have divorce laws in their favor if they were given the same career opportunities as men, so divorce wouldn't leave them in a position to still need outside (ie yours) income, but that would be too intelligent to do. Maybe if men were so intent on control, sex and power, they wouldn't think it was a good idea to limit careers and moneymaking to favor men, and forcing women to need a man because without one they couldn't support their own life. I have no issue with a woman seeking a divorce from a man who she doesn't feel in love with, whose domineering ways disgust her, even if there are children. It's a sad situation to see children suffer, but forcing a woman to stay with a man she doesn't love is not fair to her either. It's not a game, but you keep acting like it is, and instead of taking any responsibility, you keep blaming the game (women) like a spoiled, entitled child. That you want to cry over a few months of away time, that would happen only a few times in her entire life time anyways, is extremely immature. It's not her fault a lot of guys are unattractive twits who don't respect or care about her enough to keep her happy in a relationship or marriage, and it's not her problem if you feel powerless around an independent woman that doesn't have to put up with your disrespect and entitlement just because you make the money you are denying her for making herself.

Again you're bringing in an issue that should be non-existant in an equal world. It doesn't matter what the woman does outside of the workplace, it's her problem. Therefore it's equal b/c work doesn't care about anyone's problems.

And again, if extra benefits didn't exist for woman, this wouldn't be an issue.

[Zephyranthes]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If she was willing to take the time off without pay then there wouldn't be any discrimination b/c then THEYD BE THE SAME AS A MAN, you know equal, like in equality, the same, uniform.

Except she's looked over for pay raises and promotions now because of having to leave for "personal reasons". So, you know, "equal". Why do you think the world revolves around what men experience? There is no discrimination against men, you don't get pregnant, you don't have to worry about losing your job or lost job opportunities due to a biological function of your gender. Why not go cry discrimination against workplaces for equal employment opportunity for other races, why pick on just a gender? I'm sure there's a place somewhere that had to hire a lesser qualified <X race> over a <Y Race> due to EEO, that has to be discrimination too.

Simple example, you show a kid an ice cream cone and an ice cream cone with sprinkles and ask if they're the same and the kid says no (workplace). Then you (as in you) force him to say they are the same by strong arming him. When the simple solution would be to take the sprinkles off one, or put them on the other. Only in some twisted world does some guy look at both and say "oh yes they're the same," and calls foul when someone doesn't agree with him.

No one's arguing they are the same, we're arguing it's equal. How many words do I have to define for you?

	same    [seym] adjective 1. identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned: This street is the same one we were on yesterday. 2. being one or identical though having different names, aspects, etc.: These are the same rules though differently worded.

e·qual    [ee-kwuhl] adjective, noun, verb, e·qualed, e·qual·ing or (especially British) e·qualled, e·qual·ling. adjective 1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light. 2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance. 3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest. 4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws. 5. adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree: The supply is equal to the demand.

A woman, pregnant or not, is still allowed equal opportunities as a man, who doesn't get pregnant. It's equal, not the same, equal. She doesn't have to tie her tubes to compete for a job position, and she doesn't have to worry that giving birth has just destroyed her career chances. You can't deny a woman the same opportunity a man has just because she is a woman, or because she got pregnant. Same to you appears to mean "everything a man can have and nothing more", so she either has to conform to acting more like a man (not getting pregnant), or she has to live below what a man could achieve, just because of her gender. Equal is both genders getting that opportunity, even though they have differences.

Let's start arguing about getting sick too, obviously workplaces should not care about your personal "problem" of getting sick, so if you get sick, someone will replace you. It's equal, you can't perform as well when you are sick, so someone more qualified (not sick) should be given your position while you are out. Sound good?

	Again you're bringing in an issue that should be non-existant in an equal world. It doesn't matter what the woman does outside of the workplace, it's her problem. Therefore it's equal b/c work doesn't care about anyone's problems.

Her "problem" seems to be biological, so either she can stay in the kitchen cause she can't have a job and get pregnant, or it could be made equal that she can still be a woman, and still have the same opportunities that a man has.

I can't even fathom why this would be so bothersome to you, i've watched a good half dozen women take maternity leave at my workplace, and never once did I think "damn what an entitled bitch, I don't get paid time off, how unfair". Considering the risk to the health of the woman and the child involved, her safety and the safety of her baby are much more important than crying over a paid vacation I don't get, for a reason I don't experience.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no discrimination against men, you don't get pregnant, you don't have to worry about losing your job or lost job opportunities due to a biological function of your gender.

Pregnancy is not exactly a mere "biological function" like circulation or digestion, it has a choice (actually, two choices) coupled to it. Causing pregnancy works the same way, and as we've seen in this thread, the fact that the man makes a choice whose consequences he can anticipate is important in deciding how to handle the biological unfairness associated to pregnancy. (Things would be fairer if people were hermaphroditic, and the carrier of offspring could be decided by the couple in question. Alas we are not.)

What is both discrimination and a potential problem, is discrimination against women because of the probability that they will become pregnant, rather than the fact that a given woman actually does.

	Why not go cry discrimination against workplaces for equal employment opportunity for other races, why pick on just a gender?

I haven't seen anyone saying that "equal opportunity" was fair with the exception of women, so this is completely unrelated.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's start arguing about getting sick too, obviously workplaces should not care about your personal "problem" of getting sick, so if you get sick, someone will replace you. It's equal, you can't perform as well when you are sick, so someone more qualified (not sick) should be given your position while you are out. Sound good? Her "problem" seems to be biological, so either she can stay in the kitchen cause she can't have a job and get pregnant, or it could be made equal that she can still be a woman, and still have the same opportunities that a man has.

B/c carrying the pregnancy to term, as well as taking off for those 6 months or however long it is, is HER CHOICE. Just like it is a guy's choice to be a stand up comedian at night who can't commit to his regular job. Both have problems getting to work but they're both by choice. I'm a competitive athlete and have problems getting to work on time so I don't get promoted as often, but that's my choice. You see that? We're both not at work for different reasons but they're chosen reasons.

Yes and getting sick is not a choice.

[Zephyranthes]

Stopping the option of being a comedian has sllllllllllightly less implications than stopping the "option" of being pregnant, namely the DEATH of an unborn baby, but just a minor detail. It's not always a choice, i'd take a stab that unplanned pregnancies are just about as common as planned ones, these days. If she's pro-life i'm just going to guess she's going to have to "choose" to either go against her beliefs and values or watch her career chances crumble.

It's a choice to your exposure or risk of getting sick, you could take medications or limit your exposure to outside elements, take your vitamins, etc. :P Since we like linking articles to crap, here you go:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I mean if you want to stay competitive here you're going to have to do everything it takes to stay on top right? It's only fair your employer keeps the "best" people. Eat right, stay fit, get enough sleep, don't eat ice cream with sprinkles, tie your tubes, whatever it takes.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Zephyranthes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stopping the option of being a comedian has sllllllllllightly less implications than stopping the "option" of being pregnant, namely the DEATH of an unborn baby, but just a minor detail. It's not always a choice, i'd take a stab that unplanned pregnancies are just about as common as planned ones, these days. If she's pro-life i'm just going to guess she's going to have to "choose" to either go against her beliefs and values or watch her career chances crumble. It's a choice to your exposure or risk of getting sick, you could take medications or limit your exposure to outside elements, take your vitamins, etc. :P Since we like linking articles to crap, here you go: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I mean if you want to stay competitive here you're going to have to do everything it takes to stay on top right? It's only fair your employer keeps the "best" people. Eat right, stay fit, get enough sleep, don't eat ice cream with sprinkles, tie your tubes, whatever it takes.

So have the baby then and take a month off unpaid instead of putting it on the employer's tab. Why is that out of the question? I keep saying the employer doesn't care why you're out just that you're out.

How is it your choice of getting sick? Just by going outside and talking to people you're exposing yourself. Poor argument. Are you going to get pregnant by talking to people?

It's got nothing to do with keeping the best people and more to do with having someone not there for 6 months while paying her. If she can limit it and put whatever costs there is similar to a man ie not taking the wages when she's out, then the man and woman are on the same page. Why's that so difficult?

[Zephyranthes]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So have the baby then and take a month off unpaid instead of putting it on the employer's tab. Why is that out of the question? I keep saying the employer doesn't care why you're out just that you're out.

A month or 6 unpaid is totally a viable option for anyone, let's not even consider the medical costs or the costs associated with raising children.

	How is it your choice of getting sick? Just by going outside and talking to people you're exposing yourself. Poor argument.

It's a choice to go outside and socialize, you'll just need to limit your risk to illnesses, to make sure you are in peak employment condition. There is nothing wrong with this, it's not your employer's concern that you have a social life.

[Philanthropist]

	Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can see how maternity leaves to take care of the baby are unfair (men can do that, after all), but to recover from pregnancy and breastfeeding surely is not.

Well no, but men have goals and aspirations that may require taking time off from work, although these continue to be ignored.

I understand pregnancy is more tangible and easy to define that other psychological or physical needs, but from an idealistic perspective the unbalance is definitely unfair.