Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

So anyway I heard a pretty interesting story the other day that abortions for sex-selective purposes is illegal but rarely enforced in India. Just curious if there's an agreed upon feminist view of this practice and the law against it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...

Larry:

It seems like you got burned by a situation where two employees went out on maternity leave at the same time and you were forced to work unreasonable hours as a result. I get that that sucks. The problem is that you're putting 100% of the blame on the women who dared to take their maternity leave and 0% of the blame on the employer that doesn't plan for situations where employees must take leave. This seems unreasonable.

Demyx wrote:

Larry:

It seems like you got burned by a situation where two employees went out on maternity leave at the same time and you were forced to work unreasonable hours as a result. I get that that sucks. The problem is that you're putting 100% of the blame on the women who dared to take their maternity leave and 0% of the blame on the employer that doesn't plan for situations where employees must take leave. This seems unreasonable.

Let's be clear here. I personally didn't mind all that much. I was already working full time and my wife understood that when I signed on for the gig that I could be just gone for months on end for random reasons. However, everyone else seemed to mind, and particularly the women with children who were forced not to see their children for the duration. I'm just relating the situation. Speaking for myself, I was okay with it. It was a nonissue. I was one of the few friends that woman had, because I didn't mind all that much.

As for blame, well I'm Filipino. We have a crappy government. We've always had a crappy government. We blame the government for everything. It doesn't really help. Only the wealthy control the government. Bitching about it is nice, but it doesn't really do anything. People who want change seriously have a tendency to end up dead. But that's neither here nor there. No one really wants to hear me bitch about this. I know that. You can freely assume that we're constantly bitching about the government.

So then you won't disagree that perhaps the situation is at least partially or mostly the government's fault for putting you all in that bad situation, then.

Demyx wrote:

So then you won't disagree that perhaps the situation is at least partially or mostly the government's fault for putting you all in that bad situation, then.

That's generally thought of as being in the realm of unicorns and faeries. I'd love to have a government system where there's unemployment benefits for very skilled workers large enough for them to be available for temping. A temp neurosurgeon would be really something, I imagine. I'd love for the government hiring system to have a provision for temporarily hiring these workers. I don't see any way for that to be reasonable or realistic, though. I can't fault the government for not having limitless resources.

But yeah, sure. We have paid maternity leaves, but the system could stand to be a lot better. Like I said, I didn't personally mind. I got the distinct impression that the emotional content behind the sentiments were not really driven by reason, though.

Here's additional context I'm highlighting from the original anecdote:

We honestly didn't mind that all that much, but one of those guys took maternity leaves every year and she had no appreciation for how much covering that required. It was her right. Everyone hated her guts.

So you've been arguing about maternity leave for pages because you don't like this one woman's attitude?

No. You're getting the wrong message, methinks. I spelled it out last page. I started off saying that working mothers and working fathers should be considered equal workers.

Giving paternity leave as well as maternity leave is a way to do that.

Forcing, you mean. It's relatively easy for a working father to ignore paternity leave and take the extra time to get a leg up on his peers who are taking time off work. Not so easy for a working mother to compete with a working father who's earning brownie points for not taking his leave.

That happens with just maternity leave anyway, where women are pressured to take less than they are entitled to.

Hey, I got no problem with paternity leave. I'm cool with the concept. I'm just saying that my not opting to take any will just put a spotlight on women taking maternity leave - more than there is already. There's a certain expectation that if you're a professional, you put work first. That's true of sick leaves as well. I haven't taken a sick leave in 5 years, though I probably should have taken a few here and there. You get a bad rep when you take sick leaves and people find you in the mall.

EDIT:

Clarification. I didn't mind. I've said that twice already. I was friends with the woman. Lots of other people minded. Not me personally. I get the distinct feeling that I'm tapping into some cultural meme here that sounds vaguely like what I'm saying and everyone thinks I'm saying that. deva is particularly off in several particulars. It's like she's talking with someone else.

LarryC wrote:
Somehow a discussion about women became an argument about men's rights, because, ice cream. Which then devolved into women being told that pregnancy and childbirth is a trivial task and we are slackers "taking vacations" if we need more than a few hours of recovery.

1. I never called it trivial. You're putting words in my mouth.
2. I stipulated two days for normal vaginal delivery, not a few hours.

I believe your exact words were: "The only difference is that working mothers need to carry to term and give birth. This is not an onerous task."

Now, unless onerous means something completely different in the Phillippines, then yes, you basically called gestation and delivery of a child 'trivial'. And I'll stop you right now with any kind of "but I never used the word trivial in any of my posts!" argument, as calling something 'not onerous' implies that it's trivial. I generally think you have valuable stuff to add to discussions, Larry, but I do notice this rather...interesting habit you have of not understanding how people can misinterpret your posts, and a general unwillingness to see things from perspectives other than your own. It comes across as a lack of empathy, which can cause very strong reactions from people.

LarryC wrote:

Clarification. I didn't mind. I've said that twice already. I was friends with the woman. Lots of other people minded. Not me personally.

Now I literally can not work out what the last 2-3 pages of this thread was for.

DanB wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Clarification. I didn't mind. I've said that twice already. I was friends with the woman. Lots of other people minded. Not me personally.

Now I literally can not work out what the last 2-3 pages of this thread was for.

Self aggrandizement.

I already said that I may be using "not onerous" in a different fashion. Should I, like, highlight it or something?

My point there was that a woman being able to bear children is the chief difference between a male and a female worker, and it shouldn't be cause for different treatment because it doesn't matter that much. If you want to make a point that women workers mean more benefits for employers to pay for and significantly more hassles, be my guest.

LarryC wrote:

I already said that I may be using "not onerous" in a different fashion. Should I, like, highlight it or something?

Maybe you should try explaining it then, instead of assuming we can all read your mind? As far as I can tell, there is only one usage of onerous, and that means burdensome or heavy. I have yet to come across any colloquialism like 'bad' meaning 'good' for onerous.

I think you're making some fair points in this thread in regards to equal consideration for home management and paternity leave, but I really took issue with you being so cavalier about pregnancy and delivery. And I'm not the only one, so clearly there was a problem with the way you were expressing yourself.

nel e nel:

Is it really all that important? It's a phrase used in support of an overall thesis, which has been getting ignored for 3 pages in lieu of painting me the bad guy and shooting me in the head. Because I used a wrong phrase. Seriously? I'm not down with it. It distresses me. We can continue this in pm, if you like, but I think I need to take a break from the thread for now.

It'd be nice if everyone in an argument would take responsibility for and ownership over their own words, but there's no way in the world to force it if they won't. I think we should drop it and focus on the topic.

LouZiffer wrote:

It'd be nice if everyone in an argument would take responsibility for and ownership over their own words, but there's no way in the world to force it if they won't. I think we should drop it and focus on the topic.

What was the topic again?

We still speak English in here, right?

I agree with you to some degree, Lou. However, the lengths people will go to to muddy the waters on this topic is a huge part of the problem. Just giving up every time it happens leaves that tactic on the table.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

We still speak English in here, right?

Que?

momgamer wrote:

I agree with you to some degree, Lou. However, the lengths people will go to to muddy the waters on this topic is a huge part of the problem. Just giving up every time it happens leaves that tactic on the table.

Yeah. In this case we have several pages of trying with little to show for it, though.

LouZiffer wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I agree with you to some degree, Lou. However, the lengths people will go to to muddy the waters on this topic is a huge part of the problem. Just giving up every time it happens leaves that tactic on the table.

Yeah. In this case we have several pages of trying with little to show for it, though.

You're not wrong. If I was better at figuring out where it would be best to throw out a life preserver and float away, I would have much better luck at some of this stuff.

LouZiffer wrote:

At this point I'm pretty much convinced the failure is intentional. It always seems to end this way (in P&C episodes of the LarryC show at least). Either LarryC suddenly realizes (again, for the nth time) that American/western culture is pretty different from the Philippines, or we're being mean and attacking him for his perfectly unobjectionable statements (which could never possibly be taken as insults by a rational person).

I think dropping the subject outright is probably the best way to go about it. Making "behind the back" comments about the way LarryC may handle his words/statements doesn't seem like the proper way to go about dealing with it. Perhaps he just has a hard time expressing in text what he's feeling on the subject, and the fact that everyone is responding directly to him or basically "calling him out" would appear from the inside that you're being piled on. Granted I also see that you guys don't intend that and are just trying to figure out where he is coming from. But people here love to make little "witty" comments about people here and it does tend to drive people away.

The Conformist wrote:

But people here love to make little "witty" comments about people here and it does tend to drive people away.

okay

think about this for a minute

The Conformist wrote:

But people here love to make little "witty" comments about people here and it does tend to drive people away.

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y_CvIxe4gBg/TE8zxBds0_I/AAAAAAAAPb0/kXJrz2At4hY/s1600/dog_smoking_drinking.jpg)

Harumph!

What in the hell is wrong with that dog's paw.

edit: OR:

What in the hell is wrong with that man's face.

Seth wrote:

What in the hell is wrong with that dog's paw.

I'm betting what's wrong is it's actually a puppet hand.

On topic, a puppet hand made by the patriarchy.