[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Btw, I just saw a news show on this very subject. The employer operates a health care company, and he gave his employees time and help to quit smoking, but the policy was announced a year ahead of time and it is legal in Michigan, so that's that. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in670168.shtml Employers are allowed to test for drugs, and even alcohol if necessary. The same laws that permit that are used to enforce the nicotine ban.

Thanks for the link. Good read.

I'm personally very against this policy, which means I would never work for that company even though I am not a smoker. But since we're on the subject of freedom, the only attack on freedom here is the company's right to enforce the policy they choose. And I defend that right, agreeing with it or not.

 

[rickcr42]

"lose that exess baggage or your fat a*s is gone !"

"if we test your cholesterol level and it is high and you do not eat what we say you are outta here !"

"you look a little soft around the middle.Not doing your laps after lunch ? why do you think we installed the track ! do your laps or you are done here !"

"dammmit ! the other employees are taking up a collection.it seems your face is offensive and they are tired of looking at it so they are compiling a hope chest of loot in the hopes you will do something about your ugly self .Take the money,get the operation or look for other employment "

Nope.Not a stretch from where I sit .

the very things the youth think funny now and can never pass I laughed at in my youth before these things became the norm.

you are not supposed to notice the erosion of rights or it could not take place

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 "lose that exess baggage or your fat a*s is gone !" "if we test your cholesterol level and it is high and you do not eat what we say you are otta here !" "you look a little soft around the middle.Not doing your laps after lunch ? why do you think we installed the track ! do your laps or you are done here !" "dammmit ! the other employees are taking up a collection.it seems your face is offensive and they are tired of looking at it so they are compiling a hope chest of loot in the hopes you will do something about your ugly self .Take the money,get the operation or look for other employment " Nope.Not a stretch from where I sit . the very things the youth think funny now and can never pass I laughed at in my youth before these things became the norm. you are not supposed to notice the erosion of rights or it could not take place

But wouldn't you say that you'd be infringing on the private companies rights to have policies like that?

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I personally agree with you that this kind of discrimination is wrong and I would never work for a company that practiced it.

But I dunno, I just don't see the government mandating who a company can and can't hire as freedom either.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Eventually, if women do not reproduce, then society will start to pass laws that will act as an incentive to women to get pregnant, as they now do in France. And if women choose to reproduce more than society wishes, there will be legislation penalizing women for not limiting the size of their families. At the same time, I doubt there will be any mandatory sterilization policies for men. After all , men merely make laws not babies.

From France to China in so very few lines.....(My Outside tone...

)

Acting in a general policy about incentives to promote more babies is so different that a policy tracking and penalizing individuals that are not complying to a social limitation of opposite policies.

Do they put women in jail for not having enough babies?

Amicalement

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

But wouldn't you say that you'd be infringing on the private companies rights to have policies like that?

truth be told there is no such thing as a fully private company in the U.S.

Fair trade laws,enforced minimum wage,garnished wages,OSHA rules and regs,pollution laws.The federal government has a total lock on the private sector and the companies MUST obey the rules or face the penalty.

add to that there is nothing in the constitution about the "rights" of the corporation or the collective but there is a definitive and specified right of the INDIVIDUAL average citizen so tell me who is having their rights violated by who?

devils advocate also

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Men aren't being told by their bodies to reproduce? There is a reason people say men think about sex every 7 seconds. It's because it's pretty much true. In fact, I would argue that men think more about sex, and thusly reproduction, than women do. The male libido is pretty much ready to reproduce at any given time. Now I'm not saying it's the same thing, but we each have our side of the coin here. It's not the same thing, because men don't feel the same draw to just have kids, as merely to engage the act. I mean, men do, but trying to compare a man's want to have kids to a women's biological clock is not giving the women nearly enough credit. So we'll just leave it as not the same. You're acting like reproducing is a negative thing here anyway. Society really doesn't have much to do with it. As a species we are being told to reproduce by ourselves. Society's pressure is only a reflection of that, a mere by-product if you will. If ANYTHING society rejects the reproduction because it is a drain on our resources. However, society is not strong enough to over come the will of men wanting to have sex, and females desire to have children. It is not a social imperative whatsover. It's biological, and society might reflect that, but it's not an imperative. Society pressure is pressure. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing that. But it's still a choice. You're still free to make that choice and live with either consequences. Do not confuse fear with lack of choice. Incentives, penalties, whatever the pressure to do or not to, there is always a choice. There is no mandate. There is only the personal fear of the results of someone's actions driving consequences. To say otherwise means everyone is predetermined to have a child. And that's just not the case. I'll concede there is social pressure. But you never ever lack the choice. You can still exist, contribue, be successful and live a fulfilling life without having a child. If you believe otherwise, then we need to go back to talking about society vs reality.

Society vs. reality? Fulfilling life without children? Look around and tell me how many men actually believe this? Tell me what church or synagogue will teach little girls to grow up, stay unmarried, have no children and enjoy a life dedicated to their career? How about home schooling? Is Daddy the one staying home to school those little darlings? No, Mommy is expected to do that, even if she would rather go out a sell clothes at the mall.

If it weren't an imperative, then why do you think there is so much emphasis on preventing abortion as a alternative to unwanted pregnancy? If it were truly a choice, then no woman would have a problem going in to an abortion clinic. Society cannot argue that being pregnant is a choice when women are forced to have children that they do not want. Cloaking it in the guise of care for the unborn is just denying the obvious: society has a vested interest in making sure that women spend time reproducing! Why else would birth control pills not be covered by prescription drug plans when viagra is? Why else would the Southern Baptist Convention have announced that a woman's role is to serve her husband? All of these attitudes reflect very ancient habits that say that women exist primarily to procreate. Do all women share these views? Probably not, but it does not mean that women don't suffer as a result of this. Women who wish to procreate and have a career are for the most part forced to either stay in lower paying, lower status jobs. Women are routinely glass ceilinged, and the reasoning is that they are less willing to give their all to the job. At the same time, society pressures women to take the dominant role in child-rearing. If men had as much societal pressure to take time off when their children are sick or to appear at the weekday soccer games and school plays as mothers receive, then perhaps employers would not limit women's careers this way. That's the problem with men, you want your cake (family and children) and at the same time you want to eat it too (sex). Unfortunately, the only way you can accomplish this is to take a bigger piece for yourselves at the expense of women.

 

[Genetic]

It's cold outside.....

Amicalement

 

[KYTGuy]

...A few years back, GM had to recall and/or offer recompense to owners of a couple years of light duty trucks production....several MILLION vehicles! they had switched over to a new method/technology of painting their trucks.

After further investigation that related the trucks that did versus the ones that did not require repainting, they found that it was related to the manner of dress/personal hygene of the workers who painted them. Their deodorant was flaking and preventing a good bond in stripes and patches! They were fully within their rights to require that the workers not wear deodorant, because it directly affected the profit/loss.

The flip side of this arguement is just as ugly...Fire departments and Police departments used to require a certain amount of strength to qualify for the job...the assumption was that the safety of the citizenry depended upon the ability of an officer to pull a bofy out of harm's way, or the ability to quell a bad actor in full rampage. Now, the poor citizen must toast till there are enough officers to save them from the burning car/building, or they let the baddie go, or shoot them. For this enforced equality, we must always pay more, either for an equivalent technology, or for more bodies on the job. Either way, the taxpayers pay more for less.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Society vs. reality? Fulfilling life without children? Look around and tell me how many men actually believe this? Tell me what church or synagogue will teach little girls to grow up, stay unmarried, have no children and enjoy a life dedicated to their career? How about home schooling? Is Daddy the one staying home to school those little darlings? No, Mommy is expected to do that, even if she would rather go out a sell clothes at the mall.

Everything you're talking about is a choice. Subscribing to a religion with partriarchical dogma is a choice (why the heck do women do this, anyway? in most families it's the wife who's the serious driving force behind church attendance). Home schooling is a choice and very definitely not mainstream in this country, except among midwestern and southern evangelicals, who have chosen to believe certain things. Choosing to stay home and take care of children is a choice. Some women make it, some women don't, as do some men.

Quote:

If it weren't an imperative, then why do you think there is so much emphasis on preventing abortion as a alternative to unwanted pregnancy? If it were truly a choice, then no woman would have a problem going in to an abortion clinic. Society cannot argue that being pregnant is a choice when women are forced to have children that they do not want. Cloaking it in the guise of care for the unborn is just denying the obvious: society has a vested interest in making sure that women spend time reproducing!

No, the hulaballoo about preventing abortion is more about ideology and power and control than some grand scheme to promote reproduction. It doesn't have to make consistent logical sense in the way you're trying to imply, because, well, it's mostly about belief and control, not logic.

Quote:

Why else would the Southern Baptist Convention have announced that a woman's role is to serve her husband? All of these attitudes reflect very ancient habits that say that women exist primarily to procreate. Do all women share these views? Probably not, but it does not mean that women don't suffer as a result of this.

Well, if women do not share such views, a good start would be for women to start choosing not to endorse these organizations. Things do not change unless people want them to. Women would not have gotten the vote had they not agitated for it. The rise of more modern sects like Reform Judaism are partly driven by women choosing to say, "meh, if you want to keep a kitchen with two separate sets of dishes, pots, and utensils for meat and dairy dishes, you'll have to start cooking and cleaning yourself, putz." Centuries-old patriarchical concepts only have survived this long because women choose to endorse them.

Quote:

Women who wish to procreate and have a career are for the most part forced to either stay in lower paying, lower status jobs.

Well, you know that's not true. It just takes career planning, which is a set of choices. Yes, it is more difficult to have children and get a Ph.D. then an academic career if one puts off childbirth until her thirties and decides to go back to school at 28, but such structural cases are a minority.

Quote:

Women are routinely glass ceilinged, and the reasoning is that they are less willing to give their all to the job.

The same is true of men who choose not to devote enormous amounts of time to their job. The hot-shot lawyer who's working 90 hour weeks for years at a tier-1 firm to make partner misses spending time with his kids just as much as a woman who does the same. That's life, and it's a choice.

Quote:

That's the problem with men, you want your cake (family and children) and at the same time you want to eat it too (sex). Unfortunately, the only way you can accomplish this is to take a bigger piece for yourselves at the expense of women.

Life is a series of choices, balancing priorities. Men and women all want their cake and want to eat it too. This is not a gender-specific observation. I don't see the correlation with your last sentence.

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Society vs. reality? Fulfilling life without children? Look around and tell me how many men actually believe this? Tell me what church or synagogue will teach little girls to grow up, stay unmarried, have no children and enjoy a life dedicated to their career? How about home schooling? Is Daddy the one staying home to school those little darlings? No, Mommy is expected to do that, even if she would rather go out a sell clothes at the mall.

I think I have a different perspective on this because I'm from a different generation as you. Because of that, in my generation those things you just listed aren't really issues of strife. The outlook of people my age just isn't like that anymore. And I've know more mothers who quit to stay at home because they want to. Apparently some women really like being a mother, and cherish it. Personally, I've known more of these types than the type you're describing who feels pressured into having kids. Most people I know are pressured to NOT have kids. The ones that aren't pressured are looking forward to it.

So shrug, maybe this kind of thing was true in your time, but I'm not sure I feel the same pressure and strife.

Quote:

If it weren't an imperative, then why do you think there is so much emphasis on preventing abortion as a alternative to unwanted pregnancy? If it were truly a choice, then no woman would have a problem going in to an abortion clinic. Society cannot argue that being pregnant is a choice when women are forced to have children that they do not want. Cloaking it in the guise of care for the unborn is just denying the obvious: society has a vested interest in making sure that women spend time reproducing!

Let me preface this by saying I am pro-choice. Having said that: Preventing abortion as an alternative to unwated pregnacy?!? If a couple is having sex, and isn't practicing proper birth control techniques (it's both parties repsonsibility) then abortion is a really silly way to be a birth control method. The arguement against abortion in the first place is of a moral one. Those who oppose it aren't out to make sure women have babies, but because they feel that it's taking a life. And believe it or not, but some people tend to think taking a life is wrong. Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but I would never advocate abortion as a birth control method. That just irresponsibilty on the couple's side, not some looming pressure to have children.

Quote:

Why else would birth control pills not be covered by prescription drug plans when viagra is? Why else would the Southern Baptist Convention have announced that a woman's role is to serve her husband? All of these attitudes reflect very ancient habits that say that women exist primarily to procreate. Do all women share these views? Probably not, but it does not mean that women don't suffer as a result of this. Women who wish to procreate and have a career are for the most part forced to either stay in lower paying, lower status jobs. Women are routinely glass ceilinged, and the reasoning is that they are less willing to give their all to the job. At the same time, society pressures women to take the dominant role in child-rearing. If men had as much societal pressure to take time off when their children are sick or to appear at the weekday soccer games and school plays as mothers receive, then perhaps employers would not limit women's careers this way. That's the problem with men, you want your cake (family and children) and at the same time you want to eat it too (sex). Unfortunately, the only way you can accomplish this is to take a bigger piece for yourselves at the expense of women.

Well like I mentioned before, I think you and I are just products of different generations. My generation doesn't seem to care what the Southern Baptist convention has to say about having a child. Do all woman share these views? Probably not is right!

Again, a generation gap I think. I work for a company in the fortune 20. At this company I've worked for more women than men. And these women have all been the same pay grade as the men. These things are public to promote this kind of diversity. Women get FLMA status to go on maternity leave. They can leave up to a year. Now seriously, if a woman wants to be away from work for more than a year, she's not quite as interested at going back to work then. She has the choice. Work or stay at home. It's not some pseudo prison, do what you want, and don't let this social stigma trap you. If anyone does, it's their own fault for falling victim to it.

Women can still have kids and work too, it's not some crazy conspiracy. Now I'm not naive I know in the very recent past things haven't been like this. But they've really changed. And it's probably still like that in some places, but shrug, some traditions, however stupid they are, are hard to break. But they are broken. However ancient they are doesn't affect each persons own individual decision making process.

That last paragraph I don't really feel like responding to. You seem like you have an issue with men in general. Most couples I know go at it like a partner ship. They both like their kids and enjoy spending time with them and going to their hobbies. They get fulfillment out making their kids happy and don't look at it like a chore. They also both enjoy having their cake and eating it too. And neither of them take advantage of eachother at the expense of the other.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I'm just saying you and seem like we have diferent experiences and therefore different opinions. But our different experiences and perceptions are proof that women have the choice. I've seen them. I've seen the ones that choose one side, and I've seen those that choose the other side. Either choice, kids or no kids, family or no family, man or no man, they all were happy with what they did because it was thier choice and they made it by themselves. Those with kids loved them because they wanted them. Those without, loved themselves and their friends because they didn't have them. Proof that there is a choice despite any social stigma. Those who are unable to escape the pressure and social stigmas did so because they made that choice, whether they felt they had one or not.

 

[Bunnyears]

The problem with defining choices is that no one makes their choice in a vacuum. It is much easier for a man to decide to put in 90+ hours a week at that top lawfirm than it is for a woman. Certain choices are structured in such a way as to favor men. I have no doubt in my mind that the woman who chooses her career at that firm and then makes partner has sacrificed her time of greatest fertility. The very idea of saying that women don't deserve a top career track because they choose to spend their time raising and nurturing the young of the species indicates just how engrained the idea is that women don't deserve anything better than a second class career because their real career is child bearing and raising. You may call it a choice, but it is a choice of bad and less bad for a woman where as it is a winning scheme for a man. The man making the same choice has not sacrificed anything, infact, many of these men are already married and procreating. Very often, these men will reach a certain level of wealth and status and then they will discard the wife who has born their children in favor of a younger woman who chooses to have a "career" instead of a family, and then, surprise, they start a second family. Yes, these things are all choices, but choices are influenced by external pressures, and the pressures that exist push women towards procreation and subordinate roles in society.

As to your reading of Reform Judaism, take it from a reform Jew, the movement had nothing to do with women's rights and more to do with the desire of the wealthy Jewish male in Germany and Austria to assimilate better into German and Austrian society, and later the desire of Jewish (largely of German and Austrian origin) American men to assimilate into American society. Reform Judaism has changed over the years to include women in rabbinical roles, but that reflects changes that have occurred in the Episcopal church as well. Go look at Judaism as practiced by those of Polish and Russian origin and you will see a religion as orthodox and conservative as that practiced by strict Methodists, Lutherans, Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians. If you really want to get specific, you might want to compare reform Judaism to movements such as Unitarianism, which also had very little to do with the evolution (ooh, dirty word

) of women's rights and their growing role in society.

 

[aeriyn]

Surprised this thread hasn't stepped "out" yet...

My parents have constantly pressured me to avoid having children (yet). My male friends don't care one way or the other; at least some of them are waiting for me to "miraculously" turn straight.

My female friends [that live in the South] subtly needle me for not already working hard on a family and finding someone to "take care of me." My female friends that live in more liberal areas have supported my decision to not ever have children (which would involve having relations with a man, and I do not wish that) and perhaps adopt a child later in life.

I see everyone's perspective and from my soapbox, they all seem logical when looking through a male-colored or female-colored glass. Women may have a choice not to have children, but the societal consequences may be unbearable. It remains a choice, yet the consequences make the choice an "evil" one.

And about the "taking care of me" issue... right now, all the care I need is a new job and maybe some DT531s... =P

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Let me preface this by saying I am pro-choice. Having said that: Preventing abortion as an alternative to unwated pregnacy?!? If a couple is having sex, and isn't practicing proper birth control techniques (it's both parties repsonsibility) then abortion is a really silly way to be a birth control method. The arguement against abortion in the first place is of a moral one. Those who oppose it aren't out to make sure women have babies, but because they feel that it's taking a life. And believe it or not, but some people tend to think taking a life is wrong. Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but I would never advocate abortion as a birth control method. That just irresponsibilty on the couple's side, not some looming pressure to have children.

Unfortunately, contraception has been known to fail. Depending on the relationship, choices will be made, but that is another discussion.

Quote:

Most couples I know go at it like a partner ship. They both like their kids and enjoy spending time with them and going to their hobbies. They get fulfillment out making their kids happy and don't look at it like a chore. They also both enjoy having their cake and eating it too. And neither of them take advantage of eachother at the expense of the other.

Most of the marital partnerships that I have seen exist in families where women are earning the same or equal wages to the man. However, when the children are sick and there is no childcare available, who do you think usually lands up taking care of the children? No matter what you say, I'll bet that the mother is the one that assumes that burden, especially in lower income homes.

Quote:

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I'm just saying you and seem like we have diferent experiences and therefore different opinions. But our different experiences and perceptions are proof that women have the choice. I've seen them. I've seen the ones that choose one side, and I've seen those that choose the other side. Either choice, kids or no kids, family or no family, man or no man, they all were happy with what they did because it was thier choice and they made it by themselves. Those with kids loved them because they wanted them. Those without, loved themselves and their friends because they didn't have them. Proof that there is a choice despite any social stigma. Those who are unable to escape the pressure and social stigmas did so because they made that choice, whether they felt they had one or not.

All I am saying is that choices are not made in a vacuum. They are made in the real world and the pressures of society are as strong as anything else that acts on young women today. Neither of my daughters wishes to marry now because they both feel that marriage will result in the slowing of their careers. Sure, they want to be married eventually and maybe even to have children sometime in the future when their careers are well established, but the sad truth is that if they are choosing to delay this part of their life, they may not be able to realize that goal. Fertility has a very limited window of opportunity for a woman, and this is another choice that men don't have to make.

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears The problem with defining choices is that no one makes their choice in a vacuum. It is much easier for a man to decide to put in 90+ hours a week at that top lawfirm than it is for a woman. Certain choices are structured in such a way as to favor men. I have no doubt in my mind that the woman who chooses her career at that firm and then makes partner has sacrificed her time of greatest fertility. The very idea of saying that women don't deserve a top career track because they choose to spend their time raising and nurturing the young of the species indicates just how engrained the idea is that women don't deserve anything better than a second class career because their real career is child bearing and raising. You may call it a choice, but it is a choice of bad and less bad for a woman where as it is a winning scheme for a man. The man making the same choice has not sacrificed anything, infact, many of these men are already married and procreating. Very often, these men will reach a certain level of wealth and status and then they will discard the wife who has born their children in favor of a younger woman who chooses to have a "career" instead of a family, and then, surprise, they start a second family. Yes, these things are all choices, but choices are influenced by external pressures, and the pressures that exist push women towards procreation and subordinate roles in society.

But you have the choice. If you want to have kids, then sorry, you're going to have to accept that it takes time away from work to do so. If you can't have both, then you have to CHOOSE one. That's the choice. So what is the problem? That's the way things are. Women have children. They don't HAVE to have children. But if they WANT to have children, then they are the ones that have to get pregnant and deliver the child. That can't be changed. But women can have children and work. My current boss is leaving in a month to go on maternity leave. She plans on coming back full time after 3-4 months. She will be a program manager when she comes back earning over 6 figures. And in the event she doesn't want to do that, she has the option of working part time at a different job, earning 35 hours of pay for 30 hours of work. She has the choice to stay at work. Or another woman at work who was very successful quit on her own accord so she could be with her new baby. That was her choice.

Your making two different arguements here. One arguement is that women don't have the choice and have to have children. But now you are arguing that woman do have the choice, but it's just not fair. Well it is what it is. Women are the ones that have to carry the baby. And if that comes with what you percieve as negative consequences (I personally do not) then the woman is free to never put herself in a posistion where she will get pregnant. Or take percautions. Or do whatever is neccessary to not have a child. That's freedom.

Quote:

As to your reading of Reform Judaism, take it from a reform Jew, the movement had nothing to do with women's rights and more to do with the desire of the wealthy Jewish male in Germany and Austria to assimilate better into German and Austrian society, and later the desire of Jewish (largely of German and Austrian origin) American men to assimilate into American society. Reform Judaism has changed over the years to include women in rabbinical roles, but that reflects changes that have occurred in the Episcopal church as well. Go look at Judaism as practiced by those of Polish and Russian origin and you will see a religion as orthodox and conservative as that practiced by strict Methodists, Lutherans, Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians. If you really want to get specific, you might want to compare reform Judaism to movements such as Unitarianism, which also had very little to do with the evolution (ooh, dirty word ) of women's rights and their growing role in society.

We have a thing called freedom of religion. If you don't agree with how a religion treats those who it has influence over, don't practice it. Using religion, something that one chooses to believe or have faith in, as a basis for other decision making is invalid. If you choose the religion, that's the choice.

You speak about women's rights. All the women I know stand up and take those rights. They don't talk about them, they take them for granted. Because they have them.

It's not unfair. It's life. And whoever says life is unfair is wrong. Life is what it is. It's as fair as you take it, and as good as you make it. And part of that making, is the making of choices.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP If you want to have kids, then sorry, you're going to have to accept that it takes time away from work to do so. If you can't have both, then you have to CHOOSE one. That's the choice. So what is the problem? That's the way things are. Women have children. They don't HAVE to have children. But if they WANT to have children, then they are the ones that have to get pregnant and deliver the child.

Gee, and men can have both, it's just the way it is! and you said it, not me!

As to your paragraph about freedom of religion, what has that to do with Wodgy's supposition that Reform Judaism arose because women didn't want to keep a Kosher household?