Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

1,301 to 1,350 of 3,118 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

Video talking about population growth and statistical trends. He's a very entertaining and intelligent speaker.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The claim was made that there should be no career damage, that laws should be passed to require people absent from work on maternity leave to be promoted at least as fast as the people working during that interval. And indeed, some will go further and say that, because women's salaries lag, the person on maternity leave should in fact be promoted ahead of the people working.

From a legal standpoint, yes their career can be 'protected', we can try to ensure that their jobs aren't disolved from under them, we can put in place a range of measures to try level the playing field.

However, time off work means:

You can't generate commissions
You aren't able to participate in most bonus schemes
You are out of touch with your client network which
- Loses your currency with their position
- Damages your ability to generate sales
- Damages your ability to get referral business from contacts
You end up 'out of date' with any new/current trends or developments
Have likely missed staff development and training
Skills become 'stale'/rusty
You end up out of touch with the office politics

The last one is probably one of the most important, as it is significantly career defining.

of course if all you do is scan stuff at a checkout down at Wallymart then not much of the above applies.


Shifty wrote:

However, time off work means:

- Damages your ability to generate sales
- You end up 'out of date' with any new/current trends or developments
- Have likely missed staff development and training
- Skills become 'stale'/rusty

Yes! And the argument is that, despite all those losses to your professional prowess, you should be promoted ahead of the people who have been working like dogs to keep those things up?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ha! Trust our beloved Comrade Goblin de Galt to put it all into perspective!

[Bows]

Although I wish getting people to join the Commonwealth Party (M-L) was as easy as getting comments favorited on Paizo.com.

Vive le Galt!


Kirth Gersen wrote:


Yes! And the argument is that,

No it isn't, the mainstream argument is nothing of the sort.


I agree with you, Mr. Shifty, but I think this whole conversation started with a video linked by Barrister Advocate above.

I didn't watch it, either.


If thats the BBC one, I am still waiting to see this maintstream argument whereby we are promoting maternity leave staff ahead of people who were still present in the workforce.


Shifty wrote:
If thats the BBC one, I am still waiting to see this maintstream argument whereby we are promoting maternity leave staff ahead of people who were still present in the workforce.

Maybe implied by the talk of quotas? It's a stretch though.

More likely, since Kirth's disclaimer says even he doesn't buy his arguments, I'd assume it's a strawman. Along with the "I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization", part. Which I also haven't seen on this thread.


Shifty wrote:
If thats the BBC one, I am still waiting to see this maintstream argument whereby we are promoting maternity leave staff ahead of people who were still present in the workforce.

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't watch it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My experience has differed. As a consultant, I'm generally part of a team on several client accounts. We have "X" amount of money to finish each job. When someone goes on maternity leave, it generally goes like this:

I've had some experience along the same lines. Just before my last deployment, we literally lost about half of the medics that where supposed to deploy with us due to pregnancy all just before we where going to deploy. That meant that not only are we having to work extra trying to get everything ready to go, but now we are a lot of people short, meaning that we get to spend even less time with out families in the last few weeks or days before we leave for a year. It's not uncommon in the military for women to get pregnant just in time to avoid a deployment. That meant that once we got there, we still had to run a 24-7 clinic, just had reduced staff, which meant a significant cut in um, um, "off days", and that everyone was working longer shifts, daily. Now there where also other examples that show a different story, too. We had a few female soldiers get pregnant, and missed a portion of the deployment, but also went out of their way to come out there and work their butts off as soon as they medically and legally could, not because they wanted to be there, but because they didn't want to screw everyone else.

Even on the civilian side, I've seen a significant number of both. I've seen some people (and not all of the female, mind you) try to squeeze every free hour they could, regardless of like you said, regardless of if they where literally robbing everyone else of their time off or leave. Even to the point where other people had to literally cancel their approved leave and basically loose all the money they had already spent on a vacation.

On the other hand, I've once been in the position where when my wife had given birth, I'd already been up for 4 days straight, (literally 0 sleep the entire time) during the labor and delivery, and some people I worked with stepped up and made sure I had a little time off to take care of my wife and newborn even though the time was a little unexpected. I didn't get paid, mind you, for it, but still, it did inconvenience others, especially because at the time I was the guy that sort of filled in everywhere. That was my job, I was a secretary one day, a social worker the next, helped out serving food and delivering laundry to patients, whatever.

People are just people, good and bad. There are a lot of sides to this, and I totally get where you are coming from. I agree with a lot of what you have said, well some of it in theory anyway. I agree with the adoption part, and my wife and I have considered it, too. I do agree that that is one thing that should be incentivized a great deal. I personally am very against abortion, pretty much regardless. Personally, I think that all of the proposed <semi->fixes will screw way too many people on the other side of that coin.

As for the BBC, Yah, I'm pretty sure it was the talks about going out and finding the talent vs mandating quotas, followed by the PF Forum participants sort of going off in a different direction. Despite the name, it's actually a very interesting, if short video. Basically two british woman talking about what they think should be the focus in gender equality from two different sides. Granted, I didn't think it would lead to this, but then one doesn't have to be a commie goblin to (even unwittingly) start a poitical forest fire.

Shadow Lodge

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
linked by Barrister Advocate above.

That's Sir Knight Advocate, or Holy Father Advocate.

And F'n via victus, Galt!!!


Vae victis, you ignorant cur.


thejeff wrote:
More likely, since Kirth's disclaimer says even he doesn't buy his arguments, I'd assume it's a strawman.

No. Kirth's disclaimer said he's not in favor of the more extreme ends of his argument -- nor of the opposite, either. It's a typical Republican tactic to say "If you're not 100% with your 'side,' you must agree totally with ours!"

thejeff wrote:
Along with the "I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization", part. Which I also haven't seen on this thread.
Slaunyeh wrote:
Maternity leave is not about "incentivizing reproduction". It's about not being a jerk. The entire point of society is to acknowledge that some people have different needs than you. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of places on Earth where you can live without being troubled by civilization.

Ahem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're a jerk, Kirth, not a monster.

I'm both!

Goblin Pride!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
You're a jerk, Kirth, not a monster.

But... look at my avatar! I have HORNS!

Shadow Lodge

White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Vae victis, you ignorant cur.

Apparently not according to paizo's new auto-correct. But everyone knows that Goblins can't read. Add in Galt, and I'm honestly astounded they can even speak a real language.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More likely, since Kirth's disclaimer says even he doesn't buy his arguments, I'd assume it's a strawman.

No. Kirth's disclaimer said he's not in favor of the more extreme ends of his argument -- nor of yours, either. It's a typical Republican tactic to say "If you're not 100% with your 'side,' you must agree totally with ours!"

thejeff wrote:
Along with the "I'm a monster who should be exiled from civilization", part. Which I also haven't seen on this thread.
Slaunyeh wrote:
Maternity leave is not about "incentivizing reproduction". It's about not being a jerk. The entire point of society is to acknowledge that some people have different needs than you. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of places on Earth where you can live without being troubled by civilization.
Ahem.
Quote:
Disclaimer: I'm actually in favor of paid maternity leave. I'm in favor of having a job to come back to. And, if the leave results in minimal disruption to job responsibilities, and when the said matron is doing a better job than her shiftless lazy no-account childless co-workers, she should damn well be promoted ahead of them. But that's not what I typically see.

That's about where I am. Though we might differ on the amount of time? I also think it should be available to split between the parents, once the physical recovery is over.

I'm not sure where the extreme ends are, but to me that seems closer to them than to the grudging acceptance of unpaid leave some have voiced in this thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'm not sure where the extreme ends are, but to me that seems closer to them than to the grudging acceptance of unpaid leave some have voiced in this thread.

"No leave! Fire her!" is extreme. And, I think, almost everyone now finds that to be barbaric -- although that was not always the case.

"More paid leave, parties, fetes, public pageants and spectacle, come back to a promotion, and to hell with the people who had to work extra to make it possible" also strikes me as extreme, but is becoming more in favor.

Mostly, I want to get people to actually think about their positions. The former one above is incredibly callous, but the latter almost smacks of -- should I say it? -- privilege. Maybe there's a better way. Or maybe not, but I think the issue is important enough to be worth looking at from all sides, and not simply dismissed with an argument of "But, babies!"

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But... But... But think of the children!


In order to have rational and productive discussions that actually go anywhere and begin to shape the business landscape, it behooves us to immediately discount 10% of either end (ie discard any extremism out of hand) and then get stuck into things. Concentrating any efforts towards the polar people is a waste of time and effort that could/should be used elsewhere.

There are moon units who are still happy to spout all sorts of opinions, from lizard man dopplegangers running the US, through to illerminarteh, and people insisting the moon landings were faked. Some days you just have to know when to cut arguments away as flat out time wasting.


Women's ability to earn money directly impacts family size, they're inversely related. The better she is able to support (or help support) the family, the smaller the family will be (statistically).


Shifty wrote:
Concentrating any efforts towards the polar people is a waste of time and effort that could/should be used elsewhere.

Sure, but sometimes presenting a "moderate" but very one-sided viewpoint in a polar fashion is a way to get people to see it in a new light. Also, the Overton Window is a real thing -- what's "extreme" isn't fixed, and what used to seem extreme can come to seem moderate, and vice-versa. And, finally, everyone in the world is convinced that their views are "moderate" and that everyone else's are "extreme," so too much of this advice leads to solipsism.


However, we can (in this case) put the views on a continuum very easily, then its just a matter of trimming.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, I'll just solve all of this. I define the moderate reasonable position. All y'all are extreme. Because I said so.

Also goblins don't really do it in the street. Have you seem a goblin "town"? Maybe they have muddy wallows. Game trails. Really.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've met goblins that I were perfectly fine people.


Goblins aren't people.


I usually just feel sorry for kids who are left home alone or at some daycare place because both parents are at work from day till night...


Beckett wrote:
White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Vae victis, you ignorant cur.
Apparently not according to paizo's new auto-correct. But everyone knows that Goblins can't read. Add in Galt, and I'm honestly astounded they can even speak a real language.

"About this time an armistice was agreed to and the commanders allowed the troops to communicate with each other. Gallic soldiers used frequently in talking to tell the Romans that they knew they were starving and ought therefore to surrender, and the story goes that the Romans, to make them believe that they were not, threw loaves of bread from various points in their lines down in to the Gallic outposts. None the less the time soon came when hunger could no longer be either concealed or endured. Camillus was raising troops at Ardea, where after instructing his Master of Horse, Lucius Valerius, to bring up his men from Veii, he was busy training a force fit to deal with the Gauls on equal terms--while the beleaguered army on the Capitol waited and hoped. It was a terrible time: ordinary military duties were by now almost beyond their strength; they had survived all other ills that flesh is heir to, but one enemy--famine--which nature herself has made invincible, remained. Day after day they looked to see if help from Camillus was near; but at last when hope as well as food began to fail, and they were too weak to carry the weight of their equipment when they went on duty, they admitted that they must either surrender, or buy the enemy off on the best terms they could get--for the Gauls were already letting it be known pretty clearly that they would accept no very great sum to abandon the siege. The Senate accorindingly met, and the military tribunes were authorized to arrange the terms; Quintus Suplicius conferred with the Gallic chieftain Brennus and together they agreed upon the price, one thousand pounds' weight of gold--the price of a nation soon to rule the world. Insult was added to what was already sufficiently disgraceful, for the weights which the Gauls brought for weighing the metal were heavier than standard, and when the Roman commander objected the insolent barbarian flung his sword into the scale, saying 'Woe to the vanquished!' [Vae victis!]--words intolerable to he Roman ears."

--Ab Urbe Condita Libri V, IL, translated 1960 for Penguin Classics by Aubrey de Selincourt

As my goblin teacher used to intone in the classroom we had converted out of a couple of refrigerators and milk crates down at the dump, "Know your Livy!"


Jess Door wrote:

Also goblins don't really do it in the street. Have you seem a goblin "town"? Maybe they have muddy wallows. Game trails. Really.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've met goblins that I were perfectly fine people.

Goblins will do it in the streets, the muddy wallows, game trails, anywhere really, wherever we can find another willing goblin.

But that's kind of a tautology, all goblins are willing.


Latin jokes from Asterix


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Maternity leave is not about "incentivizing reproduction". It's about not being a jerk. The entire point of society is to acknowledge that some people have different needs than you. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of places on Earth where you can live without being troubled by civilization.
Ahem.

Yes? There's a lot of legislation that essentially boils down to "treat people well". And if you don't agree that people should be treated well, you can either accept that's the way it is, try to force your view on everyone else, or you can go somewhere where you're not forced to watch people being treated well.

What was the question again?

I still think claiming that maternity leave is about "incentivizing reproduction" is hilariously stupid. I would not be at all surprised if George from Seinfeld had a rant about exactly that.

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shifty wrote:
In twenty years of management roles, and having dozens and dozens of Maternity leave vacancies occur during that time, not once have I seen anyone have to do 'double duty' to cover the gap.

My experience has differed. As a consultant, I'm generally part of a team on several client accounts. We have "X" amount of money to finish each job. When someone goes on maternity leave, it generally goes like this:

Manager: "[REDACTED - let's call her "Betsy"] is of course on maternity leave, and I notice her reports and analyses aren't finished. Our deadline is next week. I really need some of you to stay this weekend and finish it up."
Worker #1: "No problem! I could use the overtime!"
Manager: "Let me check the budget; we may be close to tapped out for reporting."
Worker #2: "Well, if Betsy wasn't doing this stuff before she left, she must have been doing Client Q's work, and that budget should still be there, right?"
Worker #3, under breath: "She was looking at baby web sites instead of working."
Manager: "Yeah, there's no more budget, but the work has to get done. Come on, we all have to be team players here."
A month later, Betsy shows up and parades her baby around the office. The manager coos over it. Everyone else squeals and gagas and tells her how AMAZING she is. Workers #1 and #3 begin to realize that, in effect, she stole her time off from them.

Does it always play out that way? No, it does not. But in my experience, it has more often than not, in my professional milieu. That's anecdotal, and, like I said, in cases where Betsy gets her ducks in a row, then goes on leave, then comes back and kicks ass, well, then, she IS amazing and deserves that raise.

Exactly the reason i oppose most social programs, to give to one you must take from another

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
Women's ability to earn money directly impacts family size, they're inversely related. The better she is able to support (or help support) the family, the smaller the family will be (statistically).

Smart career driven women tend to have few children they can provide for. poor high school dropouts are less likely to be responsible and know the gov will pay for all they have.

The Exchange

Icyshadow wrote:
I usually just feel sorry for kids who are left home alone or at some daycare place because both parents are at work from day till night...

Very true but what can we really fairly do about it?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, we know very well by now how you reduce population growth. Educate the entire population well, including the women. Provide good sexual education, make abortions and contraceptives easy to get hold of. Make sure people get pensions when they get old, and don't starve when they are too sick to work. If you can, make sure you disincentivize religious fundamentalism. The countries where parents of newborns get longer maternity leaves are all countries with minimal or usually negative population growth and where religion is of relatively little importance to people. If it was meant to incentivize reproduction, it seems to have exactly the opposite effect. It is a sad trend that so many today add moralistic views to uncomplicated issues, that slogans are moreimportant than facts. No wonder we get the politicians we get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaunyeh wrote:
Yes? There's a lot of legislation that essentially boils down to "treat people well". And if you don't agree that people should be treated well, you can either accept that's the way it is, try to force your view on everyone else, or you can go somewhere where you're not forced to watch people being treated well.

So, stealing time from your co-workers is "treating them well"? Gotcha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaunyeh wrote:
I still think claiming that maternity leave is about "incentivizing reproduction" is hilariously stupid.

Some might find your position equally so, but be too classy to resort to this sort of language.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Yes? There's a lot of legislation that essentially boils down to "treat people well". And if you don't agree that people should be treated well, you can either accept that's the way it is, try to force your view on everyone else, or you can go somewhere where you're not forced to watch people being treated well.
So, stealing time from your co-workers is "treating them well"? Gotcha.

And this is why we can't have nice things.


Sissyl wrote:
Well, we know very well by now how you reduce population growth. Educate the entire population well, including the women. Provide good sexual education, make abortions and contraceptives easy to get hold of. Make sure people get pensions when they get old, and don't starve when they are too sick to work. If you can, make sure you disincentivize religious fundamentalism. The countries where parents of newborns get longer maternity leaves are all countries with minimal or usually negative population growth and where religion is of relatively little importance to people. If it was meant to incentivize reproduction, it seems to have exactly the opposite effect. It is a sad trend that so many today add moralistic views to uncomplicated issues, that slogans are moreimportant than facts. No wonder we get the politicians we get.

But you can't do all that without be unfair to someone or stealing time from other workers, so screw it. Even if it works.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Some might find your position equally so, but be too classy to resort to this sort of language.

You are right, there was nothing hilarious about it at all. Sorry.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
So, stealing time from your co-workers is "treating them well"? Gotcha.

Who is stealing time from their co-workers?


Shifty wrote:
Who is stealing time from their co-workers?

See Beckett's examples, and mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
But you can't do all that without be unfair to someone or stealing time from other workers, so screw it. Even if it works.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this reads to me something like this:

Sissyl: "If we do X, Y, and Z, then we can also do Q without a hitch! Everyone Wins!"
Jeff: "Never mind X, Y, and Z. We're just doing Q."

Spoiler:
Observant readers might have noticed that I favorited Madame Sissyl's post, insofar as it provides real life examples, looks at the broader picture, and otherwise contributes to the discussion on multiple levels.


Andrew R wrote:
Exactly the reason i oppose most social programs, to give to one you must take from another

I disagree that it needs to be a zero-sum situation, unless it is specifically framed that way.

Example 1: "Betsy gets 6 weeks off, so you all work unpaid OT to cover. Suck it up and deal." This is a zero-sum way of doing it.

Example 2: "Betsy needs 6 weeks off, so we need people to help out. Anyone picking up OT gets straight pay and/or a floating holiday." This is a better way of doing it.

Sovereign Court

Is that your co-workers stealing from you or the company? Because honestly unpaid overtime and increased workloads probably get piled on folks all the time, someone off on maternity leave might just be an excuse. I suspect if all companies treated their employees well there wouldn't be a problem but it seems that the bottom line is usually more important then the folks loyally toiling away to contribute.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you can't do all that without be unfair to someone or stealing time from other workers, so screw it. Even if it works.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this reads to me something like this:

Sissyl: "If we do X, Y, and Z, then we can also do Q without a hitch! Everyone Wins!"
Jeff: "Never mind X, Y, and Z. We're just doing Q."

** spoiler omitted **

Since your argument was that we can't do Q (parental leave) without "stealing time from other workers" and none of the other things Sissyl mentions affect that, I don't see your point.

Education doesn't make maternity leave any "fairer". Nor do sexual education or access to abortion and birth control. Nor do old age pensions or safety nets. Religious fundementalism doesn't affect it either.
Even with all that, maternal leave would still be "stealing time" so we shouldn't do it.


thejeff wrote:
Since your argument was that we can't do Q (parental leave) without "stealing time from other workers"

No, it was not. My argument was that that's the way it generally plays out, in my experience." Those are not the same. I believe I already explained that to Citizen R as well.

We can offer generous maternal leave, without making it a parasitic process. Sissyl's example demonstrates that. But doing so requires more than just "Baby mommies are more important than you and you should be grateful to donate your time to cover theirs and if not you're a jerk."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Exactly the reason i oppose most social programs, to give to one you must take from another

I disagree that it needs to be a zero-sum situation, unless it is specifically framed that way.

Example 1: "Betsy gets 6 weeks off, so you all work unpaid OT to cover. Suck it up and deal." This is a zero-sum way of doing it.

Example 2: "Betsy needs 6 weeks off, so we need people to help out. Anyone picking up OT gets straight pay and/or a floating holiday." This is a better way of doing it.

Which is Betsy's fault of course. Or the government's fault for mandating maternal leave. Not the company's at all. I don't think the government can reasonably mandate how this works. At least not without seriously changing the laws governing exempt salaried positions.

Of course, if the employees are non-exempt, they can't take either example, but get Example 3 instead: "Betsy needs 6 weeks off, so we need people to help out. OT is available. Hopefully enough people will volunteer not to make it mandatory." This is a better way of doing it.

Also note that it doesn't matter here whether it's paid or unpaid maternity leave.


thejeff wrote:
Which is Betsy's fault of course. Or the government's fault for mandating maternal leave. Not the company's at all.

Or all three, to varying degrees? Or on your planet, is "fault" always a sole-ownership kind of thing?


thejeff wrote:
Of course, if the employees are non-exempt, they can't take either example, but get Example 3 instead: "Betsy needs 6 weeks off, so we need people to help out. OT is available. Hopefully enough people will volunteer not to make it mandatory." This is a better way of doing it.

Or they could be offered floating holidays or whatever, or everyone could get enough leave to do what they want with it... I think I, and others, have already mentioned these.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Since your argument was that we can't do Q (parental leave) without "stealing time from other workers"

No, it was not. My argument was that that's the way it generally plays out, in my experience." Those are not the same. I believe I already explained that to Citizen R as well.

We can offer generous maternal leave, without making it a parasitic process. Sissyl's example demonstrates that. But doing so requires more than just "Baby mommies are more important than you and you should be grateful to donate your time to cover theirs and if not you're a jerk."

So how, since as I argued and you snipped, nothing in Sissyl's example affected maternity leave being a "parasitic process"?

Or, alternately, which parts of the example mean you don't have to donate your time to cover theirs?

1,301 to 1,350 of 3,118 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards