UN working group on equity for women appalled in visit to US

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2015 14:37:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 17, 2015 13:06:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Why should women's unique role as bearers of children cause us to nullify the fundamental "pay = productivity" rule? Paid maternity leave is pay without production. There can be no doubt that it breaks the rule.

Mandating that businesses selectively break the rule for women is unjust. The fact that paying female employees on maternity leave (in deference to their special role) is noble, sometimes even beneficial to the employer, doesn't annul this injustice.

Consider: Orthodox Jews and Christians who observe the seventh day Sabbath (of which I am one) cannot work at our customary jobs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. There are no exceptions. If you adhere to the religion, if you believe in it, you cannot break the rule. Employers find this remarkably hard to deal with. Especially up north where sundown can come as early as 4:00 PM in winter, it causes a lot of problems.

In a sense, Sabbath-keepers are a liability. Huge Monday morning deadline that requires an over-the-weekend crunch? Can't do it. Major corporate presentation on one of the annual high days? Can't do it. Need somebody to close up shop Friday evening? Can't do it.

Even imposing on employers to shuffle hours around--maybe putting in an extra two hours Thursday to take off early on Friday, or working double shifts in the week before the week-long Feast of Booths in the fall--causes a lot of real consternation. Businesses have rules, schedules, and protocols, and an employee that needs to deviate them can gum everything up. Other employees see Joe Sabbath-keeper being accommodated and wonder "why not accommodate my unique needs too?".

Which brings me to my point: I don't begrudge businesses for refusing to accommodate me, and I certainly don't support the government forcing them to do so. This is despite the heavy penalties Sabbath-keepers pay for lack of accommodation, which either means being disqualified from being hired, or in some cases being fired when a frantic, irate employer discovers that "no exceptions" really does mean "no exceptions" during a Friday afternoon emergency. The business doesn't exist to accommodate the employee. The business exists to profit the business owners, and the employee's relationship with the business is governed by pay = productivity.

Do I consider it a good and noble thing when employers accommodate me? Yes, obviously. But they shouldn't be forced to. It's unjust, just as forcing businesses to pay women for no production during maternity leave is unjust. You don't force businesses to break a fundamental rule as a matter of accommodating a group with unique needs. It's a form of tyranny.

general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust?

Yes.

Majority doesn't equal right or just.

Look at the gay marriage issue... Majority for MANY years agreed that the "right" thing was to deny them equal rights... because their religion told them it was "right"... they were wrong, and it WAS unjust.

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2015 17:51:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 17, 2015 17:47:48 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue

it is a reducio ad absurdum argument, zib.  it is not intended to be "realistic".  it is intended to test whether your idea of procreation is logically valid.

if your idea of maternal volunteerism and choice is logically valid, then it needs to be applied in ALL cases.  but it can't be.  so it isn't.

what this means is that there is actually an agenda being suggested by your logic- and that is that only people that can "afford" kids should have them.  i know that is what you think.  it is in every third post you make, probably.  but there is a lot of baggage in that idea that needs to be unpacked. 

It actually can be... because childbearing IS voluntary (except in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, which are statistically so close to ZERO among 100% of the female population, that they may as well not count).

Your idea of it not being possible ignores the "I want to do it" that creates volunteerism in the first place... no matter what the "it" is.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

With as poorly as some seem to think women are being treated (i.e. more likely to make less money, less access to medical care, etc), it's amazing how they seem to live longer than men on average.  Of course that must mean that women aren't more likely to be in the lower socioeconomic classes since there have been studies that show that poor people don't live as long as wealthier people for a variety of reasons.  I guess all this "mistreatment" must not be affecting that statistic very much and it must not be affecting the ability to go to college as women are outnumbering men by an expanding margin in college (even with calls that we need even more programs geared toward women to help them succeed).  The programs themselves aren't bad, however, the arguments for them are one-sided and really have very little to nothing to do with equality.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 17, 2015 11:00:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 17, 2015 10:55:34 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

That is only IF you honestly believe women are still "funneled" into those low paying professions. 

that is what "hypothetical" means, Phoenix: ASSUME for a moment that they ARE.

And as to your question about is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work...it's not the same thing because it isn't the same work. 

don't get hung up on "same work".  what i am talking about is this.  let's say in some parallel universe, like say....19th century England, women are ONLY allowed to pursue professions which are inferior in terms of pay.  i am asking you to consider, just for a second, HYPOTHETICALLY, if that is any better than getting inferior pay for the same work.  that is all.  can you do that for me?  purdy please? 

The argument is inherently flawed, and it's odd how many people (I understand you aren't one of them) fail to either recognize of acknowledge those flaws while arguing that we need to do more to help women in this area when men are already starting to fall behind due to education and other factors (like many of those male dominated manufacturing jobs that paid decently being shipped off-shores).  I wonder if those same manufacturing jobs were female dominated, if the discussion would be that they are only being shipped off-shore because it is female dominated?  The goal post in the argument are constantly being changed.

dude.  it was a HYPOTHETICAL.  i don't care if it is flawed or not.  i am asking you to CONSIDER the argument.  sheesh.

i am NOT moving the goalposts.  i am simply asking you to consider a hypothetical.  if you can't or won't do that, fine.  have a nice day, i guess. 

The criticisms aren't based on hypotheticals, they are based on the actual situation with a misguided view of it.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 17, 2015 11:06:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 17, 2015 10:56:58 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Very, very few people are economic Darwinist.   

agreed.  would you agree that those that are economic Darwinists are disproportionately rich and powerful?

I would argue that most truly economic Darwinists are more "the ends justify the means," and also more likely to participate in illegal activity in order to gain that rich and powerful persona.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 17, 2015 20:29:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Dec 17, 2015 20:01:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what is?

Voting for people and things you want

what candidate has offered 6 years maternity leave?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 17, 2015 22:27:03 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 17, 2015 11:06:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

agreed.  would you agree that those that are economic Darwinists are disproportionately rich and powerful?

I would argue that most truly economic Darwinists are more "the ends justify the means," and also more likely to participate in illegal activity in order to gain that rich and powerful persona.

interesting.  do you think economic Darwinists are more often conservatives?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 17, 2015 22:25:48 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 17, 2015 11:00:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dude.  it was a HYPOTHETICAL.  i don't care if it is flawed or not.  i am asking you to CONSIDER the argument.  sheesh.

i am NOT moving the goalposts.  i am simply asking you to consider a hypothetical.  if you can't or won't do that, fine.  have a nice day, i guess. 

The criticisms aren't based on hypotheticals, they are based on the actual situation with a misguided view of it.

how very meta.

[happyhoix]

Dec 17, 2015 22:14:34 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

With as poorly as some seem to think women are being treated (i.e. more likely to make less money, less access to medical care, etc), it's amazing how they seem to live longer than men on average.  Of course that must mean that women aren't more likely to be in the lower socioeconomic classes since there have been studies that show that poor people don't live as long as wealthier people for a variety of reasons.  I guess all this "mistreatment" must not be affecting that statistic very much and it must not be affecting the ability to go to college as women are outnumbering men by an expanding margin in college (even with calls that we need even more programs geared toward women to help them succeed).  The programs themselves aren't bad, however, the arguments for them are one-sided and really have very little to nothing to do with equality.

Two completely unrelated facts.

Females tend to live longer than males across the board, in all societies and economic situations. It's a medical fact. There are biological reasons for this if you care to google them.

It's also a fact that in our country working women have less maternity time off and have a harder time finding quality, affordable daycare than their European counterparts - but these two facts do not at all impact how long females will actually live.

It's not like women have less food than men, or don't have access to medical care while men do - both things that might impact how long they live.

[happyhoix]

Dec 17, 2015 16:09:44 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 17, 2015 15:58:54 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Possibly you're not articulating your position very well?

Good defense! "I'm wrong so instead of admitting it, I'll just insinuate the other person is stupid! Good plan, I says to me!"

Sorry, Blonde Granny .  Didn't mean to make this about abortion and it's really not.  It's about others purporting to know what other groups/people are thinking or feeling.  I'll not be told what I think, even it if pertains to a taboo subject. 

Actually, I was just trying to joke with you, but I guess you didn't read my mind very well.

[Phoenix84]

Dec 17, 2015 16:03:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Dec 17, 2015 14:40:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Hypothetically, that would be wrong, but in reality, that's not the case.

Have you heard about the glass ceiling?

I work at a company with 800 plus employees. Almost everyone in the corporate office is a man, except the admins (all female). The people with the top ten salaries are all men (it's listed on our annual report).

So - either men are just better at being executives, or women aren't often considered for executive positions, so they don't often get a taste of that fat executive pay.

I would agree for middle management jobs, the scales are becoming more equal, but there is still a big void at the top, where the really sweet jobs are.

I never said things were perfect or that women faced no discrimination whatsoever, just that the 78 cents talking point and the assertion that women are "funneled" into low paying positions to be false, or at least misleading.

I agree that women are under represented in many executive positions, and I agree that there are likely some cultural biases at work. For example, women often go into lower paying professions, but are they low paying by virtue of the job, or by the fact women choose that job? I think it's hard to prove, but it's a possibility that the latter plays a role. In addition, I think women need to better negotiate pay, but I agree there is an unfair cultural bias against women being tough negotiators.

But these kinds of things I don't think you can less ate.

[happyhoix]

Dec 17, 2015 17:47:48 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Dec 17, 2015 17:44:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is necessary for the survival of the species, zib.  that is actually somewhat more serious than the survival of individuals.

People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue

Yes people are going to have kids regardless. I know a ton of 'oops' babies.

The question becomes, what happens to those oops babies if the people who have them can't afford to stay home and be a SAHM or pay for quality daycare? What if the mom has to return to work in two weeks and let her alcoholic aunt take care of the baby. Sure we can say 'not our problem, the mom was stupid and got pregnant when she couldn't afford to stay home and couldn't afford good quality care' - but in the end, kids raised in poor circumstances are much more likely to end up being a burden on society in other ways. More likely to be badly educated, unemployable, more likely to end up in jail. More likely to have their own kids that are raised in poor circumstances.

What if all moms had free quality daycare, offering quality food and a good pre-school learning environment? How would that impact the chances that their kids do better in school, get better jobs and contribute to society rather than being a drag on it? (By the way, the Head Start program tries to do this, but only for very poor people).

Everyone complains about generational poverty. This is one way to actually do something about it, and I would bet the money spent on this kind of program would be offset by the other programs (and jails) that wouldn't be required once these kids grow up.

[zibazinski]

Well, a lot of people won't take advantage of the free pre K program either. Some won't because it requires some effort on their part. Others won't for more apparent reasons. You can't force people to be good parents but penalizing those who do the right thing and rewarding those that don't isn't the answer either.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 17, 2015 20:52:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 17, 2015 11:23:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is.  the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant.  our existence depends on it.

therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid.  it is not just "convenience", it is necessity.

i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics.

It is a requirement for the continuation of our race that many females get pregnant... It's not a requirement that any specific females get's pregnant. It's still a choice.

precisely.  but it is not a choice for SOCIETIES, unless you view extinction as a choice.

that means that certain individuals will HAVE TO reproduce.  who are they?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 17, 2015 21:22:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 17, 2015 14:37:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

general question: is being compelled to do the thing that the vast majority agrees is "right" unjust?

Yes.

Majority doesn't equal right or just.

Look at the gay marriage issue... Majority for MANY years agreed that the "right" thing was to deny them equal rights... because their religion told them it was "right"... they were wrong, and it WAS unjust.

i don't think this is correct.  i think that the correct response is that: it can be either just, unjust, or neither.  that just and "approved" are independent variables.

the next question is: what is the alternative?  if the majority can't dictate the rules of the game, who does?  is it really preferable to, say, have a dictator do it?

[Phoenix84]

Dec 17, 2015 17:37:13 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Dec 17, 2015 17:26:38 GMT -5 bean29 said:

How often does that happen to people that truly have a career or desired employment skills?  If you have a career, you probably plan for your exit from the workforce, your time off and your return to work often even before you actually conceive.  If an employer is not stable enough to hold the job open for the employee mandating leave will fix the situation how?

We already have welfare.  We already have all the entitlements we can afford.  If we want to consider paid leave - lets talk about 6 weeks or 8 weeks, b/c it is going to be the middle and upper class that pay for this for everyone else.  Because if you get 6 months of leave and go back to work it will not be smooth sailing from there - you will still be up nights with fussy kids, have well baby and sick baby Dr. Appts need to shuffle your kids to and from Daycare on your way to work for years to come.  So now we need to pay for Maternity Leave and Day care?  and we are reducing taxes?  How will we ever balance that budget?

Our one year mat leaves are paid for by Unemployment Insurance. Everyone pays into that.

The new moms are paid with UI and the employer hires another worker to replace her temporarily.

Win-win.

There are a lot of professions that you can't just "go out and hire a temp" to replace the absent employee.

My job is requires very specific skills, and positions are often open for over a year. There's a two year qualification process. You can't just put an ad in the classifieds and expect qualified candidates.

Many jobs are like that, especially in the executive ranks.

[zibazinski]

Dec 18, 2015 11:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 17, 2015 20:52:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It is a requirement for the continuation of our race that many females get pregnant... It's not a requirement that any specific females get's pregnant. It's still a choice.

precisely.  but it is not a choice for SOCIETIES, unless you view extinction as a choice.

that means that certain individuals will HAVE TO reproduce.  who are they?

No one is required to reproduce. Where  do you get these ideas? Seriously. Maybe some people have some biological urge but most assuredly not all feel that way. I never had that urge ever. I know a lot of women who feel the same way. We had children for various reasons but none of them was "IM not complete unless I breed." Jesus, for someone who claims to be such a freaking liberal, you sure have some outdated ideas worthy of a 50's male. There are plenty of people out there having plenty of babies. Not likely the world will go extinct. 

[happyhoix]

Dec 18, 2015 9:36:12 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, a lot of people won't take advantage of the free pre K program either. Some won't because it requires some effort on their part. Others won't for more apparent reasons. You can't force people to be good parents but penalizing those who do the right thing and rewarding those that don't isn't the answer either.

If you told a woman you would give her free quality daycare so she could go back to work without worrying about her kid, do you think that would make the woman more likely or less likely to go back to work?

Especially if you told her she wouldn't lose that quality day care, even if she started earning enough she wasn't ''poor" anymore, so she wouldn't suddenly have to come up with the cash for a high quality day care at some point, or else move her child to something crappy?

 

[zibazinski]

Yes, I get that everything should be free for everyone and the world is all peace and roses. Lovely thought.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 18, 2015 12:36:30 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Dec 18, 2015 11:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

precisely.  but it is not a choice for SOCIETIES, unless you view extinction as a choice.

that means that certain individuals will HAVE TO reproduce.  who are they?

No one is required to reproduce. Where  do you get these ideas? Seriously. Maybe some people have some biological urge but most assuredly not all feel that way. I never had that urge ever. I know a lot of women who feel the same way. We had children for various reasons but none of them was "IM not complete unless I breed." Jesus, for someone who claims to be such a freaking liberal, you sure have some outdated ideas worthy of a 50's male. There are plenty of people out there having plenty of babies. Not likely the world will go extinct. 

you are conflating individuals with societies again.  if you are talking about SOCIETIES, then yes, people ARE required to produce.

have you read "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margret Atwood?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 18, 2015 12:41:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, I get that everything should be free for everyone and the world is all peace and roses. Lovely thought.

i have always believed that the world is what you make it.

[zibazinski]

I always thought individuals made up society. Silly me. But the idea that women HAVE to reproduce because of some biological urge would lower women to the level of mindless beasts. I have always been able to decide when and with whom to have sex. I can also decide whether to have a child or not. I'm not just some mindless sex crazed breeding machine. There's plenty out there having children, the world will go on. 

[bean29]

Dec 18, 2015 12:40:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Dec 18, 2015 9:36:12 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, a lot of people won't take advantage of the free pre K program either. Some won't because it requires some effort on their part. Others won't for more apparent reasons. You can't force people to be good parents but penalizing those who do the right thing and rewarding those that don't isn't the answer either.

If you told a woman you would give her free quality daycare so she could go back to work without worrying about her kid, do you think that would make the woman more likely or less likely to go back to work?

Especially if you told her she wouldn't lose that quality day care, even if she started earning enough she wasn't ''poor" anymore, so she wouldn't suddenly have to come up with the cash for a high quality day care at some point, or else move her child to something crappy?

 

It may change the situation for some people, but daycare is not 100% of the equation.  My MIL was our daycare provider.  We did pay her, but if we paid her less or next to nothing, she would have continued to care for our children.  We did think about having a 3rd, but I don't think we ever thought about it to hard, and I certainly have no regret that we stopped at 2.  There are other financial considerations beyond daycare.  A third child would require physical, and mental financial effort beyond daycare.  In the US, we are never going to demand women have children.  Our tax rate is already at 40-50% between

[weltschmerz]

Dec 18, 2015 12:41:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, I get that everything should be free for everyone and the world is all peace and roses. Lovely thought.

Our daycare, like our healthcare, isn't "free". We all pay into it, because it's better for our society.

Healthy bodies and healthy families are worth it.

Whatever makes you think it's "free"?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 18, 2015 13:08:03 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I always thought individuals made up society. Silly me. But the idea that women HAVE to reproduce because of some biological urge would lower women to the level of mindless beasts. I have always been able to decide when and with whom to have sex. I can also decide whether to have a child or not. I'm not just some mindless sex crazed breeding machine. There's plenty out there having children, the world will go on. 

that is a circular argument.  you are saying that the same rules that apply to individuals apply to societies, and that is clearly false.

what this debate comes down to is what to do when the needs and desires of individuals are different than those of the societies in which they live.  i would say that well over 90% of our discussions on this board have to do with that conflict.  your presumption that all arguments are resolved in favor of the individual is utterly false.  to give just one example, let's take that a-hole that shot up San Bernardino.  do we tolerate his needs and desires?  fuck no.  of course not.  if you extrapolate far enough, you end up at the base of Maslow's pyramid, which is what i am talking about.  if you are saying that government has no place in that, then i think you are wrong.  government is part of the fabric of society- it is part of what binds us, protects us, and yes, we also come into conflict with it- just as we do with our neighbors.

whether you choose to have a child or not is up to you- but what i am saying is that is not a choice for societies.  societies need kids.

[zibazinski]

Some societies need kids, some don't. Some can support the increase, some can't.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 18, 2015 14:45:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Some societies need kids, some don't. Some can support the increase, some can't.

all societies need kids, or they cease to be societies.  is extinction a human choice?

[happyhoix]

Dec 18, 2015 12:41:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, I get that everything should be free for everyone and the world is all peace and roses. Lovely thought.

No, we need to be selfish and think of our long term survival as a country.

Do we want a lot of poorly nourished, poorly educated, unsupervised kids running the streets (just like the third world) or do we want to invest in our kids so that more of them become productive citizens?

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I'd much rather invest in better educated, healthier kids who will hopefully be paying taxes one day that will help keep the country going than investing in, say, more tanks, or tax breaks to corporations or hedge fund managers.

I'm not advocating taxing people to pay for this. I'm advocating we take our existing tax money and put it where it manners most.  

[happyhoix]

Dec 18, 2015 14:52:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 18, 2015 14:45:46 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Some societies need kids, some don't. Some can support the increase, some can't.

all societies need kids, or they cease to be societies.  is extinction a human choice?

Look what happened to the Shakers.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 18, 2015 15:09:30 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

You two have really gone down a rabbit hole.   The bottom line is yes,  survival of the species and society depends on having babies.  It is not dependent on paid maternity leave.   Women have been having babies for 1000s of years without it.   Does it make it easier, sure.   Is it necessary no. 

Women are going to continue to have babies regardless of their maternity leave.   Look around you today.   


Now, back to the question should the US offer paid maternity leave.  IMHO, no.   I do think that this would set back the gains women have made professionally on the whole,  while benefiting only a segment of women in the workplace.  

How so? Especially in light of the fact that mat leave can be taken by either parent?