By yourself? Maybe "spoiled" is not the right term, but perhaps a combination of selfish and unrealistic. To have a great family, you have to spend time with them. To have a great career, you have to spend time on it. To have good health (one of the items I mentioned but you left out of your response), you have to spend time on it. You're going to end up sacrificing one of those things if you try to do it on your own.

It's unrealistic cause if you believe you can accomplish all of those things by yourself. It's selfish because your children will suffer no matter which area you sacrifice.




I'm not saying they can't "make it." I'm just saying they aren't going to be successful in whichever area they end up sacrificing. I.e. you can scrape by but it's more likely-than-not going to be an inferior lifestyle.



Agreed.


Spoiled was probably the wrong word. And I really think everyone sacarfices something...whether you have 2 adults involved or 5. That's life for ya. Someone usually loses/misses out on something.

You seem to be giving men a pass here, Leper. How many men don't spend time with their families in order to pursue their careers, and instead leave the job of raising children to their mates (who often work outside the home as well)? Don't the children in such families suffer too? Why do you single out women in this argument? It takes two people to create a child; why are women the ones who are punished (or labeled "selfish") when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children?
WOW, great post! I've seen this too. In most families now, both parents work full time, but it's still considered almost entirely the mother's duty to take care of the children. Fathers can have children and careers at the same time, but when mothers do it they're making a "sacrifice" that's supposedly detrimental to their children.

Spoiled was probably the wrong word. And I really think everyone sacarfices something...whether you have 2 adults involved or 5. That's life for ya. Someone usually loses/misses out on something.
That's very true.

You seem to be giving men a pass here, Leper. How many men don't spend time with their families in order to pursue their careers, and instead leave the job of raising children to their mates (who often work outside the home as well)? Don't the children in such families suffer too? Why do you single out women in this argument? It takes two people to create a child; why are women the ones who are punished (or labeled "selfish") when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children?

I wasn't talking about men, because men trying to be parents on their own is a pretty rare occurence as well - definitely no where as common as the "single mother" trend that has infiltrated our society. But I generally agree with you that men should be held just as responsible with one exception....

The only distinction I would make is regarding the only form of birth control that is 100%effective - abortion. In our society, women make the choice to have, or not have, an abortion completely independently of men. In that sense, women have ultimate control over whether children are going to be had or not. Whether you think that's appropriate or not (I don't, but that's another topic), the fact that women are given the sole discretion to have an abortion or not also gives them an extra responsibility that men do not have. (e.g. with power comes responsibility) Therefore, with unwanted children, women have more responsibility than men.

I know, I know, this always draws the response of "men should just keep their dicks in their pants" - but that doesn't change the fact that women ultimately have nine months to make the decision to have or not have the child, regardless of what the man wants.

I wasn't talking about men, because men trying to be parents on their own is a pretty rare occurence as well - definitely no where as common as the "single mother" trend that has infiltrated our society.

Why do you think that is?

Could it be, as I mentioned earlier, that more men leave their mates and children behind than the other way around?

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that nine times out of ten, in a divorce or split-up, the father grants custody of the kids to the mother (you know, so he can pursue his career, or his mistress, or both)?

You've just proved my point that men often leave their mates and children, and that society in general has made women responsible for raising children and has given men a pass.

The only distinction I would make is regarding the only form of birth control that is 100%effective - abortion. In our society, women make the choice to have, or not have, an abortion completely independently of men. In that sense, women have ultimate control over whether children are going to be had or not.

Ultimately, yes.

Whether you think that's appropriate or not

Appropriateness has nothing to do with it. It's just a biological fact. When men's bodies develop the ability to give birth, they'll get that option too.

the fact that women are given the sole discretion to have an abortion or not also gives them an extra responsibility that men do not have. (e.g. with power comes responsibility) Therefore, with unwanted children, women have more responsibility than men.

I disagree. It takes one male sperm and one female egg to create a life, and both parties are equally responsible for that act of creation (except in the case of rape, incest, blah blah blah). If the sex was consensual and neither party wanted a child, they're still both equally responsible for whatever happens.

Your argument works ONLY if the woman carries the child to term against the man's wishes - THEN she'd have more responsibility to care for the child than the man. And that would be right.

Maybe he can't wait for you to have a business so that you can get your wife and kids decent medical care, and then your business goes under because your employee decides to take 3 months of family leave and all of her vacation at the same time.

I don't see a good excuse for using 3 months of family leave and all of your vacation days for a pregnancy - it's not like women are completely helpless when they're six months pregnant. If it's hazardous to you and your child's health to work while you're pregnant, then you should not be working in the first place. Period. What kind of person risks the life of their unborn child for a few months of employment anyways?

Jobs are NOT an entitlement!
::Applauds:: Well put, as usual.

...why are women the ones who are punished (or labeled "selfish") when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children?
Because men are the ones forced to pay cash-money for your "choice". Keeping the lights on and a roof over your head isn't "next to nothing", IMHO. Seems like a fair enough dynamic to me.

Because men are the ones forced to pay cash-money for your "choice". Keeping the lights on and a roof over your head isn't "next to nothing", IMHO. Seems like a fair enough dynamic to me.


If money was all there was to caring for a child, anyone could be a good parent.

Even if that were the case, and I don't believe it is, that's nonsense.

Because men are the ones forced to pay cash-money for your "choice". Keeping the lights on and a roof over your head isn't "next to nothing", IMHO. Seems like a fair enough dynamic to me.

Even when the woman brings in just as much (sometimes even more) income as the man? How do you figure?

Even when the woman brings in just as much (sometimes even more) income as the man? How do you figure?
Not when she's not working, she's not. Outside of vacation days and sick leave (if she needs more than three months) - who's she gonna rely on? I think I reacted to your comment negatively because of the words, "...when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children". That's highly offensive, Fran.

Not when she's not working, she's not. Outside of vacation days and sick leave (if she needs more than three months) - who's she gonna rely on? I think I reacted to your comment negatively because of the words, "...when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children". That's highly offensive, Fran.
Cindy McCain.

The only distinction I would make is regarding the only form of birth control that is 100%effective - abortion. In our society, women make the choice to have, or not have, an abortion completely independently of men. In that sense, women have ultimate control over whether children are going to be had or not. Whether you think that's appropriate or not (I don't, but that's another topic), the fact that women are given the sole discretion to have an abortion or not also gives them an extra responsibility that men do not have. (e.g. with power comes responsibility) Therefore, with unwanted children, women have more responsibility than men.
I hadn't even read your response (and consequently, my replies are gonna seem anachronistic here), but I totally agree. What you just described is exactly what makes the dynamic fair. You're an incredibly logical man.

Because men are the ones forced to pay cash-money for your "choice". Keeping the lights on and a roof over your head isn't "next to nothing", IMHO. Seems like a fair enough dynamic to me.
Prae, when both parents are working full time and bringing in the money to care for the children, the comparison of who does more has to rely on other things. The reality is that, in most families, the mother is expected to do MUCH more than the father at home, even if they both put in 40 hours a week at a job. How is that fair?

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that nine times out of ten, in a divorce or split-up, the father grants custody of the kids to the mother (you know, so he can pursue his career, or his mistress, or both)?
In the latter scenario, that's what you call a real "go-getter". Oh, and the preferred term for mistress is secretary in his world.

Just to clarify, only a man's man can pull that stunt off with any success. ;)

Prae, when both parents are working full time and bringing in the money to care for the children, the comparison of who does more has to rely on other things. The reality is that, in most families, the mother is expected to do MUCH more than the father at home, even if they both put in 40 hours a week at a job. How is that fair?
Well, I suppose it's considered "fair" in the same way that certain underlying masculine obligations like opening doors, picking up checks, and paying the mortgage is.

Well, I suppose it's considered "fair" in the same way that certain underlying masculine obligations like opening doors, picking up checks, and paying the mortgage is.
Yeah, because opening the door really takes the same amount of effort as all the cooking and cleaning for an entire household. :rolleyes:

(And by the way, "paying the mortgage"? That's pretty outdated, hon. Like I said, in most families now BOTH parents work full time jobs to pay the bills.)

So are you denying that unspoken expectations based on gender exist, or that it only goes one way?

Look, long story short, you get to make the call, not us. That makes you more inherently responsible for the outcome, period. It's a simple exercise in logic here, that's all.

Yeah, because opening the door really takes the same amount of effort as all the cooking and cleaning for an entire household. :rolleyes:
And usually, if both people work, they'll get a maid to do it because neither one HAS THE TIME.

And usually, if both people work, they'll get a maid to do it because neither one HAS THE TIME.
there's always time to open the door, even if you have a maid.

there's always time to open the door, even if you have a maid.
:) I'm not saying that I have a problem with it.

Look, long story short, you get to make the call, not us. That makes you more inherently responsible for the outcome, period. It's a simple exercise in logic here, that's all.
I never disagreed with that. In fact, I completely agree.

And usually, if both people work, they'll get a maid to do it because neither one HAS THE TIME.
Not in my house. My dad works out of town 4 days a week, my step-mom works full time, and we don't have a maid.

Not in my house. My dad works out of town 4 days a week, my step-mom works full time, and we don't have a maid.

And I'll bet dad doesn't pay the mortgage all by his lonesome!

And I'll bet dad doesn't pay the mortgage all by his lonesome!
Nope, although he does make a lot more than my step-mom does (partly due to the fact that they pay him extra because he works out of town). She's in charge of the money though, because if he was in charge we'd be in SO much debt. Money burns holes in the man's pocket. :lolhit:

:) I'm not saying that I have a problem with it.
of course not-how are you going to look at her ass if she's behind you?:lolhit:

of course not-how are you going to look at her ass if she's behind you?:lolhit:


Id rather open my own door. It makes me feel funny when a guy opens it for me. I'm not the norm when it comes to stuff like that.

I work with a girl that will stand at the door waiting for her hubby to open it for her....even if she has to wait 3 minutes for him to do it.

If my boyfriend gets to the door first, he holds it open for me. If I get to it first, I open it myself. Usually I get to it first, because I walk faster than he does. :p

If my boyfriend gets to the door first, he holds it open for me. If I get to it first, I open it myself. Usually I get to it first, because I walk faster than he does. :p


I walk fast too. D is always telling me slow down. He thinks it's because I just dont want people to know we are together. LOL In most cases we hold hands and he opens the door but I can certainly open one by myself.

And I'll bet dad doesn't pay the mortgage all by his lonesome!
In today's society, where men are weak, you're probably right.

Pregnancy is temporary. Being permanently diabled would be well permanent. Bad comparison.


i'd love to see jerks like borghunter, prae, and leper get pregnant by the grace of god and see how they think it is like then when they lose their job for being "dumb" enough to get knocked up. (and so you don't use that to make a million by being a man and being pregnant, you also get to be a woman the whole time).

let's put it like this. how about from now on every single national guardsmen who has to leave his/her job for a tour of duty in iraq or afghanistan automatically loses that job.

i'd love to see jerks like borghunter, prae, and leper get pregnant by the grace of god and see how they think it is like then when they lose their job for being "dumb" enough to get knocked up. (and so you don't use that to make a million by being a man and being pregnant, you also get to be a woman the whole time).

let's put it like this. how about from now on every single national guardsmen who has to leave his/her job for a tour of duty in iraq or afghanistan automatically loses that job.

Good point, PM. Excellent point.

What say you, gentlemen?

Good point, PM. Excellent point.

What say you, gentlemen?

Uh yeah, "excellent" point, particularly since guys can't get pregnant. :rolleyes:

But to humor you - even if I could get pregnant, and I was stupid/unlucky enough (which I'm not cause I don't sleep around, I use birth control, and I don't have sex with a woman I'm afraid to have children with) to get knocked up under undesireable circumstances, I would get an abortion. Yes, it's that simple - maybe not pleasant, but it's a simple, readily available solution.

I hadn't even read your response (and consequently, my replies are gonna seem anachronistic here), but I totally agree. What you just described is exactly what makes the dynamic fair. You're an incredibly logical man.

Thanks, Prae - considering the source, I appreciate that compliment.

i knew one would come up with a bullshit answer.

Why do you think that is?

Could it be, as I mentioned earlier, that more men leave their mates and children behind than the other way around?

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that nine times out of ten, in a divorce or split-up, the father grants custody of the kids to the mother (you know, so he can pursue his career, or his mistress, or both)?

You've just proved my point that men often leave their mates and children, and that society in general has made women responsible for raising children and has given men a pass.



Your argument works ONLY if the woman carries the child to term against the man's wishes - THEN she'd have more responsibility to care for the child than the man. And that would be right.

You mean a woman might have a child against a man's wishes!? (and then sue him for child support no less) No, that almost never happens. That's why "nine out of ten" single mother's must exist because men pursue their career or mistress instead of raising their children!

Right.

Uh yeah, "excellent" point, particularly since guys can't get pregnant. :rolleyes:

But to humor you - even if I could get pregnant, and I was stupid/unlucky enough (which I'm not cause I don't sleep around, I use birth control, and I don't have sex with a woman I'm afraid to have children with) to get knocked under undesireable circumstances, I would get an abortion. Yes, it's that simple - maybe not pleasant, but it's a simple, readily available solution.


I wouldn't find something that wasn't pleasant to be that simple. But that's just me.

You mean a woman might have a child against a man's wishes!? (and then sue him for child support no less) No, that almost never happens. That's why "nine out of ten" single mother's must exist because men pursue their career or mistress instead of raising their children!

Right.


I dont think she said it wouldn't happen. And she said that she felt the woman would be responsible in that situation.

i knew one would come up with a bullshit answer.

And I knew you would not have a reasonable response beyond "if you were here, I would punch u in the face."

I would expect nothing more of an "anti-civilisation" Appalachian pothead who likes to threaten people on a friggin message board.

I wouldn't find something that wasn't pleasant to be that simple. But that's just me.

A phone call to the doctor. Make an appointment. Undergo a routine, albeit unpleasant medical procedure. I don't consider that complex for sure - and certainly not for a solution of last resort.

To be clear, I don't want to minimize getting an abortion here - I'm careful in my sex life so that I would never have to ask someone I cared about to go through it. But don't pretend there's no simple way out of an unwanted pregnancy.

Uh yeah, "excellent" point, particularly since guys can't get pregnant. :rolleyes:

But to humor you - even if I could get pregnant, and I was stupid/unlucky enough (which I'm not cause I don't sleep around, I use birth control, and I don't have sex with a woman I'm afraid to have children with) to get knocked up under undesireable circumstances, I would get an abortion. Yes, it's that simple - maybe not pleasant, but it's a simple, readily available solution.

Nice dodge, but the question isn't about men getting pregnant. It's about being fired for a temporary absence from work. In the OP's case, an employer fired an employee over a temporary absence (for medical reasons beyond her ability to control, I might add), which you seem to think is reasonable.

Do you think it would be reasonable to fire a soldier for a similar temporary absence from work?

Do you think it would be reasonable to fire a soldier for a similar temporary absence from work?

I don't want to change the topic of the thread, but yes, I do...assuming there were no laws to forbid that.

Basically, I don't think employers are under any obligation to be charitable to employees - that's the nature of a business relationship. If a business were a charity, we wouldn't call it a "business" anymore, would we?

And I knew you would not have a reasonable response beyond "if you were here, I would punch u in the face."

I would expect nothing more of an "anti-civilisation" Appalachian pothead who likes to threaten people on a friggin message board.
LOL!

Do you think it would be reasonable to fire a soldier for a similar temporary absence from work?
Reasonable? Yes. Compassionate? No.

Do you think it would be reasonable to fire a soldier for a similar temporary absence from work?
No, because the armed forces don’t turn a profit, and moreover, if the soldier in question sustained an injury, it was probably while working for the US government in hostile territory.

I mean, is it really your contention that businesses should gladly employ lame workers, regardless of their bottom line? Businesses aren't charitable institutions, and nor should they be. If they were, we'd be struggling communists.

I mean, is it really your contention that businesses should gladly employ lame workers, regardless of their bottom line? Businesses aren't charitable institutions, and nor should they be. If they were, we'd be struggling communists.

Not at all. Business owners are perfectly free to be assholes to their employees. Of course, assholey bosses create assholey employees, which hurts the business far worse in the long run than simply having an employee be absent for a week or two, but hey, if Elizabeth Arden wants that sort of rep, they got it.

Now let me ask the women in the audience (since I doubt you'd even consider walking into such an establishment), ladies, knowing what you know now, would you ever consider working for an Elizabeth Arden Red Door Spa? Would you ever spend your money in one?

a capitalistic society dictates that you work until you drop. and at low wages, you can not save enough to retire, it is your fault. so sorry, try again.
also, children are forced to work dangerous dirty jobs. whether they lieit or not to help their families survive on low wages and long hours. (read your history dumbfuck). you die? so sorry try again.
women work dangerous dirty jobs while pregnant or while trying to raise a family PROPERLY, and without an education. and if you lose your job for giving birth ortrying to raise them properly, so sorry, try again, read your histroty dumbfuck!!!!!!!!!
every capitalistic bastard here should THANK socialism and or communism for better health care, retirement possiblities, education for everyone and better work conditions. READ YOUR FUCKING HISTORY DUMBFUCK!!!!!
and it is time for women to be able to have children, no matter the job, raise them properly for a decent time period for proper bonding and care.

a capitalistic society dictates that you work until you drop. and at low wages, you can not save enough to retire, it is your fault. so sorry, try again.
also, children are forced to work dangerous dirty jobs. whether they lieit or not to help their families survive on low wages and long hours. (read your history dumbfuck). you die? so sorry try again.
women work dangerous dirty jobs while pregnant or while trying to raise a family PROPERLY, and without an education. and if you lose your job for giving birth ortrying to raise them properly, so sorry, try again, read your histroty dumbfuck!!!!!!!!!
every capitalistic bastard here should THANK socialism and or communism for better health care, retirement possiblities, education for everyone and better work conditions. READ YOUR FUCKING HISTORY DUMBFUCK!!!!!
and it is time for women to be able to have children, no matter the job, raise them properly for a decent time period for proper bonding and care.

part two, because this board keeps timing out.

because families are unable to raise their children is why the children are becoming uncontrollable spoiled brats.
socialising begins far BEFORE birth. whatever a mother feels the baby feels. this is because hormones and chemicals are released into the blood stream SHARED by the baby with the mother. the child has a more STABLE emotional experience after birth if the mother spends a LOT of time with the child. this means MONTHS not days or weeks. why punish the mother for what a child NEEDS!!!!!???????
if you want a more stable human in the future, they need a more stable experience with the mother for a long period of time. OR you can start paying the father more money to support the family. what is a work force without stable people? and that begins far long before they are born or can even start to walk.
asshole.

And I knew you would not have a reasonable response beyond "if you were here, I would punch u in the face."

I would expect nothing more of an "anti-civilisation" Appalachian pothead who likes to threaten people on a friggin message board.

listen shit for brains. my pic in the avatar is me. my profile states where i live. what about you? whose hiding?
i can still kick your ass if i want to. BOY.
i'm a man. i raise a family. protect them from danger , protect them from bullshit, and do my damnedest to protect them from capitalistic civilized sacks of shite like you.
what the main difference between you and me is that my indian ancestors showed me is that we MEN owe women a LOT. and i got balls and you DON'T. that's obvious.

a capitalistic society dictates that you work until you drop. and at low wages, you can not save enough to retire, it is your fault. so sorry, try again.
also, children are forced to work dangerous dirty jobs. whether they lieit or not to help their families survive on low wages and long hours. (read your history dumbfuck). you die? so sorry try again.
women work dangerous dirty jobs while pregnant or while trying to raise a family PROPERLY, and without an education. and if you lose your job for giving birth ortrying to raise them properly, so sorry, try again, read your histroty dumbfuck!!!!!!!!!
every capitalistic bastard here should THANK socialism and or communism for better health care, retirement possiblities, education for everyone and better work conditions. READ YOUR FUCKING HISTORY DUMBFUCK!!!!!
and it is time for women to be able to have children, no matter the job, raise them properly for a decent time period for proper bonding and care.
Capitalism enabled you to make that post. Without capitalism, you wouldn't be on the Internet, because it wouldn't exist.

Capitalism enabled modern medication and health care. Without capitalism, our life expectancy would probably be hovering around 50.

You reap the benefits of capitalism without even realizing it. And yet, you badmouth it. Where would we be without the incentive for innovation that capitalism provides?

listen shit for brains. my pic in the avatar is me. my profile states where i live. what about you? whose hiding?
i can still kick your ass if i want to. BOY.
i'm a man. i raise a family. protect them from danger , protect them from bullshit, and do my damnedest to protect them from capitalistic civilized sacks of shite like you.
what the main difference between you and me is that my indian ancestors showed me is that we MEN owe women a LOT. and i got balls and you DON'T. that's obvious.

Okaaaay....go you, heap big man.

Capitalism enabled you to make that post. Without capitalism, you wouldn't be on the Internet, because it wouldn't exist.

Capitalism enabled modern medication and health care. Without capitalism, our life expectancy would probably be hovering around 50.

You reap the benefits of capitalism without even realizing it. And yet, you badmouth it. Where would we be without the incentive for innovation that capitalism provides?



right..................... eye roll.


i believe every woman on the planet would love to know who exactly borghunter, prae, and leper types are. so they may never ever get laid ever again. unless they have to PAY a crack whore with hepatitis c and AIDS in D.C. to have it done,
right ladies?

right..................... eye roll.
Congratulations - I can now think of no person more suited to adorn the "proudest troglodyte alive" crown, PM.
i'm a man.
If you say so.
i raise a family. protect them from danger , protect them from bullshit...
You're the bullshit, Ivan; you're just too fucking stupid to realize it.
...and do my damnedest to protect them from capitalistic civilized sacks of shite like you.
Well, then you're doing a shit job, moron, but then again, I suppose your efforts here are nothing short of par for the course, aren't they?

Oh, and just to set the record straight, if you're looking to "protect" your family from "civilized capitalists", then perhaps you should consider ditching the computer, dipshit.

P.S. Lep, this is the kind of person who takes solace in reconciling himself to mediocrity. A real concrete mixer, for sure. He's a prime example of who I was referencing in the other thread.

You're the bullshit, Ivan; you're just too fucking stupid to realize it.


Lol, pretty much - he claims "protect his family from danger," and in the same thread seems to invite some stranger to his home for some sort violent showdown...

P.S. Lep, this is the kind of person who takes solace in reconciling himself to mediocrity. A real concrete mixer, for sure. He's a prime example of who I was referencing in the other thread.

Yeah - as far as I'm concerned, he lost the benefit of any doubt for sure. Oh the other hand, look at Fran, who's saying she used to have the glamorous job of cleaning hotel rooms for a living - I mean, her political ideas are a little out of whack sometimes (no offense, Fran!), but she's a well-spoken person with a mind of her own - I would bet she is a pretty interesting person to know IRL.

Oh the other hand, look at Fran, who's saying she used to have the glamorous job of cleaning hotel rooms for a living -
I know, it seems pretty hard to believe considering how bright she is.
I mean, her political ideas are a little out of whack sometimes.
LMFAO! I agree, but I'll let her tear your nuts off because YOU said it, not me!
I would bet she is a pretty interesting person to know IRL.
I agree. She's pretty feisty, and sometimes a little bitchy, but hey....she's a woman, so she's permitted. Isn't that right, Frannie? :D

you know, you guys take the thread and steer it as quickly as possible away from the main subject as possible when you are losing and looking like total jackasses.
capitalism made things better? what do you think would have happened if socialism and communism did not bring up the fact that people need better working conditions, health care, and better pay? huh? what's that sound? we'd still be working for .10 cents a day in dangerous situations made that bad by the man. children being chewed up by machinery or dieing from lung disease from crawling down a chimney to clean them. and you know it would still be that way.

The people running the company were pricks. It would have been nice had they allowed her to work fewer hours or not work at all and saved her job for her when she returned months later.

However, there is nothing in the law that says they can't be pricks. Say they had let her cut back her hours and hired another woman to take her place while she was at home, what would happen to that other woman when she came back? should the company fire her? Should they keep her on even though they no longer needed her?

Companies are in business to make money not to be social agencies. Yes, they were pricks from a humane point of view but they did the right thing from a business point of view. You can't expect to be not doing your job for more than a third of a year and up to three quarters of a year and be kept on the payroll.

I know, it seems pretty hard to believe considering how bright she is.

HEY! Here's the deal. At 21, I left home for the snow-covered mountains of Lake Tahoe. I took a job as a cashier at Kirkwood ski resort to support my skiing habit (employees ski free all season). By the time the season was half over, I decided it was time to start looking for a real job - had to beat out all the other ski bums looking for summer work. So I took a swing-shift maid job at Harrah's Tahoe. Unfortunately for Kirkwood, they never asked for my employee pass back, so I skied every morning for free and cleaned a few hotel rooms at night to pay the rent. Now who's the nut?

:D

I agree. She's pretty feisty, and sometimes a little bitchy, but hey....she's a woman, so she's permitted. Isn't that right, Frannie? :D

Why, I oughta... ! http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/65/20/22132065.jpg

:D

and frogger it seems it is going to take a bit longer to get the women a chance to keep their jobs and spend time with their kids to be a mom. women who run companies that do this to women should be stamped and filed away as a bigger dick than the men who run them.
eventually what kind of society is it that treats women like this?
i'd like to see the men on here who support this bullshit go and tell mom this. see how fast she smacks him on the back of the head, and hopefully with an iron skillet.

what kind of society is it that treats women like this?
One in which people earn money based on their ability? You know, capitalism?

One in which people earn money based on their ability? You know, capitalism?
good businessmen don't go around pissing off their customer base.

piss off enough women and see what happens. you MIGHT get laid.
borghunter, even communist countries have a monetary system.
it is just that they don't have the rich people keeping it all to themselves. they share with the people.
it is just a simple mindset change.
like seeing a neighbor who needs help, and helping them. give them some food if they need it.
i think jesus was a socialist.

Primitive Man, why should corporations have to allow a woman to 'spend time with her children'? If women wish to be treated equally in the business world they cannot ask for special priveledes. Men cannot 'spend time with their children' or take time to be a Dad, other than at most a two week period immediately after the birth of the child. I can see giving women up to two weeks, if the company wishes to do so but women do not have some inate right to stop working because they had a child and to then expect the company, and ultimately the company's customers to pay their way.

Being a parent is a big responsibility but it is the man's and woman's responsibility not the company they work for's.

Men cannot 'spend time with their children' or take time to be a Dad, other than at most a two week period immediately after the birth of the child.

Is that how it works in the Frogger household? Eek.

If you were just a wee bit more intelligent, Frannie, you would have realized that I was responding to the posts regarding time away from work used to bond with children and to be a mom or dad, specifically to this sentence from primitive man; Frogger it seems it is going to take a bit longer to get the women a chance to keep their jobs and spend time with their kids to be a mom."

Maybe you could convince one of the chickens to offer you a bit of tutoring in reading comprehension.

All I will say on this subject is that the balance of power is going to shift rapidly from the employers to the employees very soon. Businesses that are too fixed in their ways will find it very hard to retain good employees if they don't allow things like pregnancy leave and work-from-home, and a generous vacation plan. Of course, if your job is something like waiting tables, you won't be afforded these luxuries. Find a job that can't be replaced in an hour!

frogger, rolls eyes, taps foot in patience, it is the GOOD thing to do.
imagine a woman who is a good worker, needs time to be a mother, and takes that time, suddenly badabing badaboom, the family turns out really stable. stable people makes a stable worker, and a stable society.
for all time women have spent more time with the kids. not the father. that's the fact. but today it takes two and now most likely more to even survive financaily. and society is breaking down? gee , i wonder why.............
sure, women shoudl spend a longer period of time with the kids. RAISE YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN PLEASE and it starts with MOM. we owe HER a LOT. have some respect, patience, understanding, and LOVE and COMPASSION! give her job back when she is willing to DO IT!
although, i am a throw back to a different time, i think boy children should be raised by the men at the age of 5. spend as much time as possible with uncles, grandfather, dad, brothers. then they learn to be men. AND respectful of women and their mothers and society. but that goes into something far more complicated than this thread is dealing with. maybe if it was done more men wouldn't fall for tv bullshit, metrosexual treands, etc., so easily, and get off their butts and be responsible adults and men. instead of playing games all the time.