Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, the only one here who's actually read Cixous is Caketasty, and he seems to have a pretty flimsy grasp on her ideas, so maybe we should all just hold off on the critiques for the time being.
What is with the backlash against feminism?
- Thread starter jackelgull
- Start date
The problem with the discrimination is that it is bad for society - regardless of legitimate basis or not. I don't want to live in a society where "Are you married?" is a highly relevant question in an interviewer's mind for women, but not for men.
I think it's best if employers look at a person as a black box with qualifications that answer questions- their visual appearance should be absolutely irrelevant. It might even be better to not have in-person or phone call interviews at all - but to have interviews over the internet, for reasons of fairness (no visual appearances) and transparency (conversations saved for legal purposes).
Of course, this sacrifices some other relevant facts, such as tonal cues which may represent a person's degree of confidence. But it also discards facts that are unfair discrimination - age, sex, disability, etc. and this seems like a way to defeat our conscious or unconscious biases.
I'm not sure how this would work for promotions. I am also well aware that employers want to discriminate on factors like age, sex, appearance, or disability, because it is frequently better for the bottom line.
I think if employers want to consider the bottom line over needs of the community - then intrusive systems like these need to be in place, to safeguard individuals.
If employers are willing to sacrifice for the sake of the community, then laws can be laxer and allow employers freer choice. Generally, this doesn't seem to be the case in our community, which seems centered around the ideas of capitalism and individual success. Everyone should feel a sense of civic duty towards society, which sometimes means not optimizing for profits and prices. This is not emphasized in our society, except when it comes to saying, "You should vote." In ancient Greek society, Socrates felt such a sense of civic duty, that he willingly took hemlock for his execution, despite having opportunities to escape from prison. This is because his sense of civic duty willed him to put the goals of society above his individual goals. It's an extreme example, but it shows a mindset that is rare nowadays.
So overall, it's a trade-off. Should employers only focus on what's good for themselves, their consumers, and their shareholders, or should they also focus on what's good for society as a whole? I say that employers shouldn't be able to say "That's not my job" when it comes to fair hiring practices.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
Edit: Apologies for the wall of text. I wrote it in a quick reply box and didn't see it in its entirety until I posted it...
I disagree with Commodore when he says that employers have no onus to provide financial security for their employees. The economy and society as a whole only functions if the average worker('s family unit) has their basic needs met in remuneration for work rendered, with a sufficient surplus to then buy goods and services from other businesses and keep the whole thing ticking over. But as I type this I realise I might be misinterpreting "financial security". If by that he means some sort of guarantee that said income will continue regardless of whether or not the work stops being done, then I would agree with that to a certain extent.
However, talking specifically about maternity law, I think the way that the current system works in the UK (I have no idea if this applied to the US or anywhere else) actively encourages discrimination against female employees. I was talking about this with a female friend of mine recently who normally knows what she's talking about on these matters, and so I admit that I haven't checked up to see if she is correct, but she told me two things which I think cause problems:
1. The maternity/paternity leave laws are unequal for men and women. Women can take up to 6 months leave on full pay, and a further 6 months unpaid before a company can actually find a permanent replacement for her. The leave for new fathers is something like 4 to 6 weeks (not sure how much of that is paid.
2. Employers aren't legally allowed to ask if a female applicant is currently pregnant or has any plans to start a family in the near future.
The upshot of this is that it's a much larger risk for a company to take on a woman as it is to take on an apparently equally able man. Not only do they have to take the gamble that the female employee could, at any point, cause a massive, year-long disruption, and take half a year's pay into the bargain, but the fact that they aren't even allowed to enquire if she might be about to do this means that ALL women are then a potentially equal risk. At least if they were allowed to ask "are you pregnant?" then that would actually help the 90%+ of women who can actually answer "no" to that question. After all, it's perfectly acceptable to ask almost any other question about an applicants life or plans that might interfere of affect their future at the company, so why is this one legally sacrosanct? I've actually had members of my own family take jobs while they were pregnant, knowing full well they would only be working for 2 or 3 months before taking a year off, and felt entirely justified in not mentioning this. I personally think that's an incredibly dishonest and dishonourable thing to do.
Now, it's all very well saying "well employers need to be taught/forced/whatever not to discriminate in this way", but the system as it stands gives them every incentive to discriminate against women, and no real possibility to stop them doing it. The criteria on which an employer makes a decision on who to hire are so nebulous and unenforceable, down to things like whether you think their personality will gel with the company or whatever, that it's incredibly easy to justify almost any appointment. So a company can hire a man over a woman precisely because of these laws, but justify it on some other basis. And I really don't think you can blame them for doing this. The government have passed laws that encourage discrimination against women, and have justified them on precisely the opposite grounds. And again, it's all very well to ask a company to put the needs of the community ahead of the bottom line, and hopefully they can and should do that to SOME extent, but you're basically asking for a company to run on communist principles in a capitalist system, and that's just not going to (often) happen.
What alternatives are there? Well there's a proposal (maybe it's already been signed off, I don't know) that this year-long maternity leave can actually be split between the mother and father however they see fit. The father could take the whole year while the woman works, they could take 6 months each etc. This obviously sounds more "equal" in principle, but of course we know (or at least strongly suspect) that women will still predominantly choose to be the care givers, and so in practice this law will make very little difference in terms of employment preferences. The men will still be seen as a lower risk.
You could make the length of maternity leave somehow dependent on length of time employed at the company. For the first year the woman could be guaranteed no maternity leave other than the 4 - 6 weeks that men get. After a year they would qualify for 6 months (3 paid, 3 unpaid). After 2 years they get the full allowance as now. This seems somewhat fairer, and would prevent a woman immediately taking a year off straight after being employed. But the risk would still be there, even if watered down somewhat, so women would STILL be less employable because of it.
To me the only sensible option is to abolish such long, paid-for maternity leave entirely. Women are then seen as no more risky to hire than men. If they choose to have a child at some point and want to leave to take care of it then so be it, the company can find a replacement just as they can if a man chooses to leave for whatever reason. Obviously it's still only right and proper that the woman is given SOME security here, and this could even be paid for in the form of an extra tax, possibly paid only by businesses, that goes towards some form of extra child benefit. Of course an extra tax is never popular, but it would allow the upkeep costs of new mothers to be spread evenly (and perhaps more importantly, continually and predictably) across all businesses. It is something they would have to pay regardless of anything else, it would be regular and predictable and hopefully small enough to manage, and it would lead to no motivating factor for discrimination in hiring. Rather than a company just being unpredictably saddled entirely with the upkeep of one particular woman which, for a small business particularly, could be an enormous hassle and potentially crippling and a massive motivating factor for just hiring a man instead.
Or at the very least just let the question be asked in interviews.
I disagree with Commodore when he says that employers have no onus to provide financial security for their employees. The economy and society as a whole only functions if the average worker('s family unit) has their basic needs met in remuneration for work rendered, with a sufficient surplus to then buy goods and services from other businesses and keep the whole thing ticking over. But as I type this I realise I might be misinterpreting "financial security". If by that he means some sort of guarantee that said income will continue regardless of whether or not the work stops being done, then I would agree with that to a certain extent.
However, talking specifically about maternity law, I think the way that the current system works in the UK (I have no idea if this applied to the US or anywhere else) actively encourages discrimination against female employees. I was talking about this with a female friend of mine recently who normally knows what she's talking about on these matters, and so I admit that I haven't checked up to see if she is correct, but she told me two things which I think cause problems:
1. The maternity/paternity leave laws are unequal for men and women. Women can take up to 6 months leave on full pay, and a further 6 months unpaid before a company can actually find a permanent replacement for her. The leave for new fathers is something like 4 to 6 weeks (not sure how much of that is paid.
2. Employers aren't legally allowed to ask if a female applicant is currently pregnant or has any plans to start a family in the near future.
The upshot of this is that it's a much larger risk for a company to take on a woman as it is to take on an apparently equally able man. Not only do they have to take the gamble that the female employee could, at any point, cause a massive, year-long disruption, and take half a year's pay into the bargain, but the fact that they aren't even allowed to enquire if she might be about to do this means that ALL women are then a potentially equal risk. At least if they were allowed to ask "are you pregnant?" then that would actually help the 90%+ of women who can actually answer "no" to that question. After all, it's perfectly acceptable to ask almost any other question about an applicants life or plans that might interfere of affect their future at the company, so why is this one legally sacrosanct? I've actually had members of my own family take jobs while they were pregnant, knowing full well they would only be working for 2 or 3 months before taking a year off, and felt entirely justified in not mentioning this. I personally think that's an incredibly dishonest and dishonourable thing to do.
Now, it's all very well saying "well employers need to be taught/forced/whatever not to discriminate in this way", but the system as it stands gives them every incentive to discriminate against women, and no real possibility to stop them doing it. The criteria on which an employer makes a decision on who to hire are so nebulous and unenforceable, down to things like whether you think their personality will gel with the company or whatever, that it's incredibly easy to justify almost any appointment. So a company can hire a man over a woman precisely because of these laws, but justify it on some other basis. And I really don't think you can blame them for doing this. The government have passed laws that encourage discrimination against women, and have justified them on precisely the opposite grounds. And again, it's all very well to ask a company to put the needs of the community ahead of the bottom line, and hopefully they can and should do that to SOME extent, but you're basically asking for a company to run on communist principles in a capitalist system, and that's just not going to (often) happen.
What alternatives are there? Well there's a proposal (maybe it's already been signed off, I don't know) that this year-long maternity leave can actually be split between the mother and father however they see fit. The father could take the whole year while the woman works, they could take 6 months each etc. This obviously sounds more "equal" in principle, but of course we know (or at least strongly suspect) that women will still predominantly choose to be the care givers, and so in practice this law will make very little difference in terms of employment preferences. The men will still be seen as a lower risk.
You could make the length of maternity leave somehow dependent on length of time employed at the company. For the first year the woman could be guaranteed no maternity leave other than the 4 - 6 weeks that men get. After a year they would qualify for 6 months (3 paid, 3 unpaid). After 2 years they get the full allowance as now. This seems somewhat fairer, and would prevent a woman immediately taking a year off straight after being employed. But the risk would still be there, even if watered down somewhat, so women would STILL be less employable because of it.
To me the only sensible option is to abolish such long, paid-for maternity leave entirely. Women are then seen as no more risky to hire than men. If they choose to have a child at some point and want to leave to take care of it then so be it, the company can find a replacement just as they can if a man chooses to leave for whatever reason. Obviously it's still only right and proper that the woman is given SOME security here, and this could even be paid for in the form of an extra tax, possibly paid only by businesses, that goes towards some form of extra child benefit. Of course an extra tax is never popular, but it would allow the upkeep costs of new mothers to be spread evenly (and perhaps more importantly, continually and predictably) across all businesses. It is something they would have to pay regardless of anything else, it would be regular and predictable and hopefully small enough to manage, and it would lead to no motivating factor for discrimination in hiring. Rather than a company just being unpredictably saddled entirely with the upkeep of one particular woman which, for a small business particularly, could be an enormous hassle and potentially crippling and a massive motivating factor for just hiring a man instead.
Or at the very least just let the question be asked in interviews.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
A friend of mine in Quebec is going through this right now, and I think that's (the way you describe) how things work up there. Maybe even here in Ontario too, but we don't really have federal or province level mandated maternity or paternity leave, as far as I know anyway. Each company will have their own unique take on it, or whatever, from what I've seen.
Isn't that really the only way to do it? If more women end up taking up maternity over men, that's fine, it's up to the couple in question to decide. If the opposite ends up happening, fine also.
Isn't that what we want? You come to the couple, say "Here's a year of leave, figure out how you want to split it up", and we go from there. That's ideal, no?
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
Yes obviously it's the right way to do it, if you're going to do it at all. I'm all for choice. I just think it's still going to make women look less attractive as an employment prospect.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,989
I have a question about the family leave laws in your country: Is the 6-month paid leave required to be provided upon employment? Or do you have to work a certain number of years before becoming eligible? (I have never had reason to look up the laws.)
Back in the days when people worked for the same employer for 40 years then retired, this hardly matters. You lose 2 years because she has 2 kids. You still get 38 years, or 95%.
So an employer might hire somebody. She works for a year, then has a baby and goes on 6 months paid leave and 6 months unpaid leave, then works another year, has another baby, goes on 6 months paid leave and quits. So out of 3.5 years, the employer got 2.0 years of work and had to pay for 3.0 years of service.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
As I said, I'm really not an expert here, but I know someone in my family who got a job whilst pregnant and only worked 2 or 3 months before she took a LONG time off. I don't know if it was the full year though. But from the discussion with my friend I got the impression this was just an entitlement from day 1. But again, I can't be sure.
It would be kind of pointless to make a law that requires women to be several years in the same company to earn the maternity leave for the children she is already to old to conceive. Especially for jobs that require a long education the window of being financially secure enough and being young enough is already quite short.
But having employers pay for maternity or paternity leave is like penalizing them for employing women or men who want to raise children. So the only option I see is having the state or a public organization pay for it.
Yep, this isn't really a difficult policy question.
It really does make women less attractive as employment prospects and that is unfortunate. Unfortunately, I fear the only way to truly break that stigma would be to find a way for humans to reproduce without requiring women to get pregnant.
Well, technically it is only six months on the company's dime. The other six months is unpaid leave.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Fact: Economically successful parents are not reproducing (I believe - anywhere - without a doubt in many places)
Fact (I think, but it is without a doubt true to some significant extend, the only doubt is weather it is true in totality, and that doubt primarily depends on my lack of education): that is so because combining babies and career is hard
Fact: This screws up retirement welfare (which will mightily damage more than 40% of retirees in Germany (as in - they will suffer abject poverty), the problem is supposed to be worse in Eastern Europe, I do not know about other countries (except Switzerland, which is awesome on account of its direct democracy and already has taken care of the issue) - but it is bound to be a problem in many places, everywhere in modern economies [because they are not as awesome as Switzerland])
Fact: Measures such as mandatory baby leave significantly strengthen fertility (see Sweden or France as examples). Solving a HUGE issue of modern societies.
Conclusion: Screw your liberalism-informed notions which only flourish in their abstract ivory tower utopianism - and let's do this!
EDIT: in case this wasn't clear - this will shift babies from socially inept to socially apt families
(more white babies
)
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,989
Please clarify so that I can continue this discussion: If they are not reproducing, how can they be called parents?
I can think of two interpretations: Either you meant economically successful people are not reproducing - or you meant economically successful parents are not having children at replacement level.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
If parents have statistically less than two childes they are not reproducing. So yes I equalized reproducing to replacement. My bad. But, honestly, I thought reproduction meant replacement in that context.
Basically: We should not trust in the free market magically knowing what is best for future generations but instead should look at how we can encourage parents to give fruit to what is actually best.
Basically: We should not trust in the free market magically knowing what is best for future generations but instead should look at how we can encourage parents to give fruit to what is actually best.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
http://qz.com/266841/economic-case-for-paternity-leave/
I found this an interesting article talking about maternity leave and the economic benefits of keeping women in the work force.
I found this an interesting article talking about maternity leave and the economic benefits of keeping women in the work force.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
IMO mandatory watch regarding fertility and wealth - a classic by now (he funnily starts by wanting to talk about religion, but ends up talking about it not whatsoever)
Link to video.
Link to video.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,989
Okay. I had a lot of time to think about this issue on the way home and I was worried that I would get a lot more backlash. Given the nature of the OT, this has been a very civilized thread.
Note: One day, my supervisor might retire and the general manager might one day have no choice but to reluctantly promote me to a manager position. One day, I might be faced with a choice of who I should hire. Discussion on CFCOT might be important!
I was trying to define the risk.
If there was a one year waiting period, then we know for sure that she was not pregnant when she took the job, possibly in bad faith with the intention of collecting six months of paid leave.
With no waiting period, the worst case is she shows up on day one, fills out the HR paperwork, and goes straight to the hospital to have the baby. Then she takes six months of paid leave and quits her job. (Yes, very unlikely. Lots of luck finding your next job.) More likely, she shows up one year later and you are 6 months behind on collecting her share of work.
But I am not a lawmaker.
So you are saying paid maternity is available from day one.
It does not have to be that way. Here is how I work it out:
For simplicity of discussion, I will assume that the career is worth 100K of your favorite currency, for 40 years, for a total of 4000K. So I am neglecting the fact that later years are usually higher paying.
Based on that assumption, we generally expect a woman to have two children. So that means she took a total of one year paid leave and one year unpaid leave. So we paid her 3900K for 38 years of work, or a little more than 2.5%.
The government employer can take a long-term view on this situation and work it out over the entire term of employment. This is similar for a large corporation.
For a very small company, it could mean you risk hiring somebody at 100K, only to see her work (train) for six months, then take six months of paid leave. The 100K setback could mean mom and pop from the mom and pop shop starve.
The only answer I can think of would be to insure against the situation where you hire somebody and she has a baby. What kind of questions would the insurance company ask?
Is she currently pregnant? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
How old is she? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
Is the applicant male or female? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
So based on the answers to the questions above, we can expect the average employee to take six months of paid maternity leave and six months of unpaid leave. This is 3950K for 39 years of work, or approximately 1.25%. Your employer can find that 1.25% when it doles out next year's raises.
Based on that argument, paid maternity leave is not on the company's dime - It is on the other employees, the ones who are happily signing the card and buying gifts for the happy couple.
A lot of economically successful people are not reproducing, period. So if you included the economically successful duds (Hey! I am one of these economically successful duds!) with the economically successful parents, the ratio of reproduction you are talking about is even smaller.
Any competing theories what is wrong with my generation?
I know what you are saying, but I am very amused at how this can be interpreted.
Socially inept people are not having babies because they are, well, socially inept. I mean - Something about them makes the ladies turn up their noses at them and 
.
As I said, I understand what you really mean. I have no idea how long I have heard some people comment those who should not be having children are having children, and those who should be having children are not.
Sorry I was being picky. For a moment, I thought you were saying a lot of economically successful people were not reproducing because they are socially inept.
Note: One day, my supervisor might retire and the general manager might one day have no choice but to reluctantly promote me to a manager position. One day, I might be faced with a choice of who I should hire. Discussion on CFCOT might be important!
I was trying to define the risk.
If there was a one year waiting period, then we know for sure that she was not pregnant when she took the job, possibly in bad faith with the intention of collecting six months of paid leave.
With no waiting period, the worst case is she shows up on day one, fills out the HR paperwork, and goes straight to the hospital to have the baby. Then she takes six months of paid leave and quits her job. (Yes, very unlikely. Lots of luck finding your next job.) More likely, she shows up one year later and you are 6 months behind on collecting her share of work.
But I am not a lawmaker.
So you are saying paid maternity is available from day one.
It does not have to be that way. Here is how I work it out:
For simplicity of discussion, I will assume that the career is worth 100K of your favorite currency, for 40 years, for a total of 4000K. So I am neglecting the fact that later years are usually higher paying.
Based on that assumption, we generally expect a woman to have two children. So that means she took a total of one year paid leave and one year unpaid leave. So we paid her 3900K for 38 years of work, or a little more than 2.5%.
The government employer can take a long-term view on this situation and work it out over the entire term of employment. This is similar for a large corporation.
For a very small company, it could mean you risk hiring somebody at 100K, only to see her work (train) for six months, then take six months of paid leave. The 100K setback could mean mom and pop from the mom and pop shop starve.
The only answer I can think of would be to insure against the situation where you hire somebody and she has a baby. What kind of questions would the insurance company ask?
Is she currently pregnant? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
How old is she? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
Is the applicant male or female? (Oops. Can't ask that question!)
So based on the answers to the questions above, we can expect the average employee to take six months of paid maternity leave and six months of unpaid leave. This is 3950K for 39 years of work, or approximately 1.25%. Your employer can find that 1.25% when it doles out next year's raises.
Based on that argument, paid maternity leave is not on the company's dime - It is on the other employees, the ones who are happily signing the card and buying gifts for the happy couple.
(Clarification mine)
A lot of economically successful people are not reproducing, period. So if you included the economically successful duds (Hey! I am one of these economically successful duds!) with the economically successful parents, the ratio of reproduction you are talking about is even smaller.
(Edit mine)
Any competing theories what is wrong with my generation?
I know what you are saying, but I am very amused at how this can be interpreted.
Socially inept people are not having babies because they are, well, socially inept. I mean - Something about them makes the ladies turn up their noses at them and .As I said, I understand what you really mean. I have no idea how long I have heard some people comment those who should not be having children are having children, and those who should be having children are not.
Sorry I was being picky. For a moment, I thought you were saying a lot of economically successful people were not reproducing because they are socially inept.
I think we need to cut back on the tax penalty we impose on non-parents before we start messing with maternity and paternity leave. The tax penalty for not having a child is an unconstitutional government mandate.
