jhoijhoi wrote:
I think we got on the wrong track here. My intention wasn't to insult you, I do apologise.
WE got on the wrong track? No, missy. YOU. Your intention wasn't to insult? What did you think would happen?
jhoijhoi wrote:
I merely meant that your opinion that discrimination isn't discrimination is literally wrong based upon your own words "I don't care if it's discrimination, my opinion is that it isn't".
That's NOT even what I said! I said (repeatedly) I don't care if the LAW or STATE says it's discrimination. In my opinion, it's not.
jhoijhoi wrote:
I'm not excusing the above words, but I didn't call YOU names, I was referring to your viewpoints.
But I do apologise, as I really didn't mean to insult you. I was in a rush to get out of the house and wasn't thinking about my own words and how they'd hurt you - that was poor form on my behalf.
That's some really insincere blame-dodging. Saying my viewpoints are 'xyz', doesn't mean you're not saying that I'm 'xyz'? I am the holder of these views, these views which you are (mistakenly) saying is 'xyz'. That basically implies I am those things also, or did you think it implied the opposite? You even said something so judgemental as, 'You can't think these things'. Not even SAYING, but THINKING it is taboo? Sorry, but you were very clearly making a direct attack on me. I don't think I can accept an apology which I don't think is completely sincere or even honest. I apologise for what may be perceived as 'immaturity', but if I said 'apology accepted', I'd be lying.
jhoijhoi wrote:
As for the fertile comment, that was my point actually. Not hiring someone because they can bear children - I wasn't referring to men with that comment.
It's still sexist, because you omit that men can be fertile if you meant female. And you STILL miss the core of argument. It's not the fact that you CAN bear children, but rather that as an employer, I don't want to employ someone who INTENDS to have a child, be it male or female. I don't want an employer that will take paternity/maternity leave when I can have an employer that won't take any of this. Take your dark-tinted glasses off, for ****'s sakes.
I won't comment any further, since it'll be off-topic and it would be unwise of me.
jhoijhoi wrote:
I merely meant that your opinion that discrimination isn't discrimination is literally wrong based upon your own words "I don't care if it's discrimination, my opinion is that it isn't".
sirell wrote:
That's NOT even what I said! I said (repeatedly) I don't care if the LAW or STATE says it's discrimination. In my opinion, it's not.
Isn't that what I said? Your opinion is that is isn't discrimination when the law/state says it is. If my opinion was that the moon was made of cheese and the fact of the matter is that the moon is not made of cheese, my opinion would be wrong.
sirell wrote:
I apologise for what may be perceived as 'immaturity', but if I said 'apology accepted', I'd be lying.
Apology accepted. I know you don't believe me, and I accept that, but I in all honesty didn't mean to insult you. But just because my intention wasn't to insult you, it doesn't mean that I didn't ultimately insult you by judging you for your views. That's why I apologised. I'm not one to back down and apologise for no reason - I know when I've been a **** and said something I shouldn't have, and genuinely want to take back the hurt.
sirell wrote:
It's not the fact that you CAN bear children, but rather that as an employer, I don't want to employ someone who INTENDS to have a child, be it male or female.
Ah, I must have missed this point. In which case your ideas/opinions are discriminatory in general. You pretty much just said, "I wouldn't hire a parent". Can you imagine a world where all employers refused to employ people who had children or planned to have children? Now you're talking about "carer or parental status discrimination".
sirell wrote:
I won't comment any further, since it'll be off-topic and it would be unwise of me.
We're already pretty off topic, but I don't think it matters when you're in the Off Topic forum ^^
Quoted:
is it not fair to assume that both men and women experience natural, biological attachment/bond with their offspring?
Yes, it is fair to say that the parents both experience bonding to their child, but not the same level. A woman generally experience more bonding to their child, since what the man did not go through was all the emotional and physical conditions a woman has.
However is it also not natural that most women, instead of men, are more likely to be the main caretaker for the child? Do you see more stay-at-home dads than moms? It is not merely an assumption nor stereotype, it is the way it has been going on for centuries. It is hard to change, and I doubt it will.
Pregnancy discrimination is a wide topic. What I think is that the employer is right in fearing the loss of productivity, but not in treating the woman unfairly. It is undeniable that a pregnant woman would lose her productivity to a certain point, and that after pregnancy she would undoubtedly invest more time into her child. Same might go for a Father, still after pregnancy it is more likely for the man to continue working instead of a woman.
I find this topic to be largely based on the current stereotypes and is hard to structure a discussion without it. Interesting topic though.
BlueArtist wrote:
I find this topic to be largely based on the current stereotypes and is hard to structure a discussion without it. Interesting topic though.
Yes, pretty much everything you said was based on stereotypical views that women have to be the primary caretaker of a child (among other stereotypical statements). A woman can easily have a baby and go straight back to work, leaving the man at home to take care of the child. Or, a woman can easily have a baby and stay at home to take care of the child, leaving the man to go straight back to work.
The problem is that people don't see it as "one person stays home after a child is born, and the other works to provide for the family", but "the mother stays home after a child is born, and the father works to provide for the family".
A lot of you have been mentioning that a woman loses productivity during her active time at work during pregnancy. I would like to see some research about that, as I am genuinely interested.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Research "bonding". Both males and females undergo hormonal effects due to pregnancy and raising offspring. "Parenting behavior" is the result of these hormonal effects. During pregnancy, 2/3rds of women experience a positive bonding feeling with their baby; I haven't found any stats about whether 2/3rds of men experience a positive bond with their baby, so I cannot assume this to be the case. However, if both men and women experience hormonal effects due to pregnancy, is it not fair to assume that both men and women experience natural, biological attachment/bond with their offspring?
The fact that it's there doesn't say anything about the intensity whatsoever. Of course, fathers are happy/proud/*insert emotion here* with their children, and obviously they feel a connection with them. However, the feelings that arise are different
jhoijhoi wrote:
Edit: I'd like to add, that before today, I didn't really ever think about the gender pay gap. I only found out about pregnancy discrimination through researching the gender pay gap. I do appreciate this discussion, because if nothing else, I've become more informed.
That seems to be the case with a lot of discussions that deal with this kind of subject.
On a different note though, how does the Australian law define discrimination? I know for a fact that the Dutch Law defines it as (loosely translated): "Treating an individual or group in a way that differs from the norm when there is no justification for doing so."
Based on this, you could say that what Sirell is trying to point out, assuming I understand him correctly, that in this particular case it's perfectly justifiable to treat a pregnant woman in a different manner.
jhoijhoi wrote:
A lot of you have been mentioning that a woman loses productivity during her active time at work during pregnancy. I would like to see some research about that, as I am genuinely interested.
Denying that is essentially saying that pregnancy is, other than giving birth, no big deal and should not interfere with your life at all as long as you are tenacious. I mean, if a woman can work with the same amount of energy - noting that the very Law of Conservation of Energy already contradicts this - whether she is pregnant or not. This would mean that no woman should actually get days off for being pregnant, and if you state that, then there's absolutely no risk for companies left so then the problem would be (largely) solved.
jhoijhoi wrote:
A lot of you have been mentioning that a woman loses productivity during her active time at work during pregnancy. I would like to see some research about that, as I am genuinely interested.
Productivity is undoubtedly lower during pregnancy, with all the physical conditions such as
sirell wrote:
fatigue, dizziness, nausea, cramps and sickness, as well as other symptoms.
Also, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to admit that in some lines of work, in some capacity, pregnant women near delivery might be a little less productive. Some things such as lifting heavy objects is obviously going to be hard. As a society which is so focused on delivering results and go, go, go - trying not to discriminate a pregnant woman, whose productivity is lowered, becomes simply unrealistic.
On the topic of pregnancy discrmination, I'll throw this in as further reading.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Isn't that what I said? Your opinion is that is isn't discrimination when the law/state says it is. If my opinion was that the moon was made of cheese and the fact of the matter is that the moon is not made of cheese, my opinion would be wrong.
You still miss the point. Just because the law or state says that something is the case, doesn't mean it's true. This is a matter of definition, which has no synthetic properties to speak of. We can agree as to what is meant when the word is used, but I do not, by any means, have to agree with the definition, because the definition need not be true. Definitions have continuously changed over the course of history, so this isn't a matter of whether my opinion corresponds with 'facts', but rather I am disputing the opinion of another (the state/law).
The Law =/= morality. If I follow the law, am I good person? Of course not, that has nothing to do with it. In the same way, saying something is discrimination just because the law says it is completely avoids the actual question.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Ah, I must have missed this point. In which case your ideas/opinions are discriminatory in general. You pretty much just said, "I wouldn't hire a parent". Can you imagine a world where all employers refused to employ people who had children or planned to have children? Now you're talking about "carer or parental status discrimination".
No. No. No. No. No. Stop removing what I am saying out of context, for god's sakes. I don't even know whether I should really try and explain it any further, because you just completely extrapolate and put words in my mouth that I don't even IMPLY, let alone say.
Firstly, there's a difference between someone who intends to have children and a parent. The employer is already aware of what is meant in employing someone who is already a parent. However, the situation may change with someone who intends to have children, since it will 100% guarantee that the employee will be absent for maternity/paternity leave (depending on the job - just in case you miss this **** again -).
Neither are my ideas/opinions 'discriminatory in general', seriously, TRY and UNDERSTAND. Stop assuming/extrapolating and READ what the **** I'm writing. I have been constantly and always talking about the employers' discretion in picking what they consider to be the optimal employee (which will, ultimately involve some of discerning of ability, which you call 'discrimination'), in particular, with their discretion, I think it's entirely fine for them to consider that it's more convenient not to employ a worker who will take time off and will require replacement.
Look, maybe you'll understand if I write something ridiculous:
So let's assume pregnancy discrimination is valid. By extension, why can I not argue against 'non-skilled discrimination'? I have no skills in the job area, but why should that mean the employer doesn't have to consider me for employment? No, **** them, they should employ me and they should teach me, so I can do the job, because that's what equality's about, isn't it? Equal opportunity, equal pay, isn't that what you're saying? Hell, resumes and CVs shouldn't matter at all! What about age? Should that be a consideration, or would that be 'discrimination' too? Hell, I'm 12 years old, I should be able to get any job with the proper qualifications, right? What about when I'm 90?
That's equality right there. The blunt honest truth is just that the world isn't equal. That's why making legislation for equality actually does nothing to actually promote equality.
jhoijhoi wrote:
A lot of you have been mentioning that a woman loses productivity during her active time at work during pregnancy. I would like to see some research about that, as I am genuinely interested.
GrandmasterD wrote:
Denying that is essentially saying that pregnancy is, other than giving birth, no big deal and should not interfere with your life at all as long as you are tenacious.
BlueArtist wrote:
Productivity is undoubtedly lower during pregnancy, with all the physical conditions... Also, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to admit that in some lines of work, in some capacity, pregnant women near delivery might be a little less productive.
I'm absolutely happy to concede that at a certain point in pregnancy, a woman may not be able to perform to full potential; it is at this point that many women decide to take maternity leave. However, I fail to see how this is an acceptable reason for women to not work whilst pregnant. A woman can also suffer mood-swings due to her period - should employees refrain from employing a woman in the event they'll bleed, have a head-ache/stomach ache and preform less than normal? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but from what I'm reading, many of you think that it's okay for employees to think about women as child-bearers, and as such will be unproductive during a potential pregnancy. And during pregnancy, without even considering who the mother may be, you think that their ability to work will be sub-par. There are plenty of jobs that women can work effectively well into their pregnancy (thinking about teaching, office jobs); on the flip side, there are plenty of jobs that women will cease working effectively (waitressing, any sort of manual labour job).
However, what I just wrote above is again, a stereotype, as a pregnant woman's ability to do what she sets her mind on is only limited by what she wants to do. For all I know, pregnant waitresses find it easier to work in diners when they're pregnant (maybe they get more tips?).
My ultimate point is, just because a woman is pregnant, they don't automatically become sub par workers in all conditions. But many people do believe that women don't work as efficiently when they're pregnant. The problem is in the mindset of negativity.
You need to log in before commenting.
Edit: I'd like to add, that before today, I didn't really ever think about the gender pay gap. I only found out about pregnancy discrimination through researching the gender pay gap. I do appreciate this discussion, because if nothing else, I've become more informed.