Discussion Forums > The Lounge
Dating "Deal Braker"
elvikun:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on May 04, 2012, 07:44:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: elvikun on May 04, 2012, 07:02:44 PM ---If we were to be really fair, we should strip the right to vote from men for thousand years of two, and also they should be treated as a commodity for few centuries. Wouldn't hurt to burn or stone a few either.
What I'm saying: Don't go there, because if we were to be fair, noone would like it in this case :D
--- End quote ---
In modern moral view, justice does not judge you for the sins of your predecessors. So there is no way fairness is exercised based on what your predecessors did 2000 years ago. You point is invalid. Also you don't even have to go that far back to come across an age where neither men nor women had any voting rights. Alas our lives will last for around 80 years and it is these ones that are relevant for fairness in equality.
Oh and Israel has compulsory military service for women. Equality for the win.
Oh, and in our army for some reason MP battalion has the highest percentage of females... then comes the sanitation battalion. Thinking about it, we also have an abnormal amount of female police officers in my country, at least compared to others.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I see. Retroactive justice on men is invalid, but women should make up for what they didn't have to do troughout the history.
...
You have noticed it's a "jest" reaction, right? If women should make up for the time they weren't forced into army, then men should... Get it? I hope so Mr. Menaresoopressed :P
@Seras
Well, not everyone wants kids and treating all women from 18 to 45 as if they could disappear at any given time just isn't fair. It just isn't. Not much more to add there.
@Kadath
Proffesional army just makes it a job with strongly above average payment, potentially high-risk and no real education requiments. Not sure why anyone would be fanatical. Forcing or tricking people in doesn't really seem that cool to me.
And thinking about it, having the right t vote just doesn't seem to be so much win today. It's like having the right to choose whether you'll loose left or right eye. And don't worry, the stoning and burning will come only if you'll have sex, masturbate or do serious crimes, like leaving your house without asking if you're allowed to.
Saras:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on May 04, 2012, 07:54:53 PM ---There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.
If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.
--- End quote ---
Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.
Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.
@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.
And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.
JoonasTo:
There is so much shit in this thread I don't get why it isn't locked.
Where's duki when you need him?
elvikun:
--- Quote from: JoonasTo on May 04, 2012, 08:17:53 PM ---There is so much shit in this thread I don't get why it isn't locked.
Where's duki when you need him?
--- End quote ---
You know what's funny? People who come somewhere to say they don't like it there. It's just so constructive and intelligent, that it stuns the mind.
--- Quote from: Saras on May 04, 2012, 08:10:21 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: AceHigh on May 04, 2012, 07:54:53 PM ---There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.
If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.
--- End quote ---
Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.
Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.
@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.
And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.
--- End quote ---
Well, I admit that the laws in this area are a bit weird in most countries. Private employer not being able to let go of person which won't be present for 1-3 years by any means availiable is just wrong. But it's also where Aces "thing" comes in. I don't think woman who is for example on the executive board of large company would actually like to disappear for a long time. That's where the laws and society could/should be a bit more friendly to a man staying home with kids.
Saras:
--- Quote from: elvikun on May 04, 2012, 08:33:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Saras on May 04, 2012, 08:10:21 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: AceHigh on May 04, 2012, 07:54:53 PM ---There would be shitstorm if what you said would leak into public if you lived in my country. Basically since fathers have the same right to have paternal leave over here, it is not all that different from women. In fact it is easier, because unlike illness or accidents, this is something employers can plan ahead of.
If the day comes when my demonic offspring is born, I am sure as hell not going to spend my time at work all the time leaving the cheerful days sleepless nights to the mother alone.
--- End quote ---
Same here. However, since this is an internet forum and I don't work there anymore.
Anyway, Lithuania's laws for mother's leave is basically draconian what concerns the employer. Any women who is likely to have a kid in the near future is the equivalent of a ticking time bomb. I've seen many businesses ruined by them already, and a small industry simply can't afford such a risk. Now, of course, that is never given as the official reason why someone was declined from position x, I wouldn't have gone out of court till now if it was, lol.
@Elvis
No, it is by no means fair. I do not deny it. For redundant positions, no one gives a damn. But what concerns critical points, you can't really afford someone just disappearing on you for a year and a half. While you're only allowed to temporally employ a "dummy" in her place. Out of three years worth of operations, you basically lose one and a half. And I've yet to see a female applicant propose enough over a male applicant to justify the risk of that happening, whether she's intending for a family or not.
And there were plenty of cases here where a lady in basically in her second month got a job, just to secure the advantages that come with being working and "pregnant". Needless to say, if the company is an up and coming starter, it's a nearly guaranteed bankruptcy case if that happens.
--- End quote ---
Well, I admit that the laws in this area are a bit weird in most countries. Private employer not being able to let go of person which won't be present for 1-3 years by any means availiable is just wrong. But it's also where Aces "thing" comes in. I don't think woman who is for example on the executive board of large company would actually like to disappear for a long time. That's where the laws and society could/should be a bit more friendly to a man staying home with kids.
--- End quote ---
Whether she will or not is slightly irrelevant here. The problem is that such a thing could happen. That alone gives an extremely large advantage to any potential male employee over any female one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version