What is feminism?

[bridgeburner]

How are you disenfranchised by FMLA? Because parents need time off from their jobs to cope with having a new life brought about? Are you saying that any one job's contribution to society (which you can actually measure in dollars and cents) is more important than the potential contribution of a kid? I'll grant you this: the job is concrete, right now, in your face reality, and if you have to pick up the "slack" from someone else, it sucks... but why should the company pay you extra money for not doing anything (which is exactly what happens if you don't have a kid)? Why is the owner paying for your inaction, on top of paying for other people's choice (if indeed their kids are nothing but burdens to everyone else).

You're not tracking.

Richard pointed out a possible inequity in FMLA and I proposed a solution. I did not claim to feel personally disenfranchised by FMLA although I can see why you might make that jump.

I'm not only not distressed by financial aid to new families and support for minor children, I'm generally in favor of it. What I am not in favor of is laws that curtail personal freedoms for the sake of people who don't want to parent their own children ---- this manifests primarily in censorship issues and screachy "What about the chillllldrennnnn???" rulings.

What further confuses me .....$$$$$$
Anywho, what would feminism or Feminism think of my Utilitarian, dollars and cents approach to the issue?

This section doesn't follow from what I said, however, I'm game to answer. I gather that your intent was intended to be satiric, but there are folks who truly believe that an unborn, potential child is worth blowing up women's health clinics while at the same time refusing to vote to raise their own taxes to support Child Services and Education of millions of born kids

This is what I call the "Wish v Shit Economic Theory of Human Value."

IOW: wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up first.

 

[teknight]

You're not tracking.

Richard pointed out a possible inequity in FMLA and I proposed a solution. I did not claim to feel personally disenfranchised by FMLA although I can see why you might make that jump.

I'm not only not distressed by financial aid to new families and support for minor children, I'm generally in favor of it. What I am not in favor of is laws that curtail personal freedoms for the sake of people who don't want to parent their own children ---- this manifests primarily in censorship issues and screachy "What about the chillllldrennnnn???" rulings.

I was afraid this would happen. My point didn't quite get across as well as it might have...although I was sort of going for an ad hominem "you". However, you weren't explicit in terms of disenfranchisement. You're right though: the kids will probably grow up to be alright.


This section doesn't follow from what I said, however, I'm game to answer. I gather that your intent was intended to be satiric, but there are folks who truly believe that an unborn, potential child is worth blowing up women's health clinics while at the same time refusing to vote to raise their own taxes to support Child Services and Education of millions of born kids

This is what I call the "Wish v Shit Economic Theory of Human Value."

IOW: wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up first.

I was actually going for straight up economic theory (I'm studying graduate leve economics, hence I do that sort of thing...very fun at parties:
since you used the specific FMLA compensation to non kid having employees, you in effect applied a dollar amount that's equal to how much a potential kid is worth: Do we have the kid this year, or do we wait and get money for nothing this year, without the headache of raising the kid? Or, better yet, we have the kid, but lie about it, figure out the maternity leave issue somehow, go to work and still get the money, thus getting more money overall.

And, quite frankly, I saw your "anti-right to lifer" argument, but, quite frankly didn't wanna go there.

Overall we're both guilty of the sin of omission.., but, since I'm writing this, I'm gonna say you're more so than me.

 

[bridgeburner]

since you used the specific FMLA compensation to non kid having employees, you in effect applied a dollar amount that's equal to how much a potential kid is worth: :

No, it has nothing to do with the worth of a child. It has to do with the worth of labor. Richard pointed out that there is a possible inequity in financially subsidizing employees who bear children while making no comparable contribution to those who do not. Essentially, the employer is paying a child-bearing employee to produce nothing for the company for the duration of the leave.

Now, it is certainly beneficial to society to continue to have children and for those children and families to have time to form a stable, initial bond; however, it is also beneficial to society to have labor and production. Neither of these things can society continue without for any great length of time.

Of course, it could be argued that people choose the benefit that most suits them --- progeny for some, greater overall material wealth for others, but the essential issue that I was addressing is that which Richard put forth: the possible inequity of FLMA benefits.

Debating the worth, potential or otherwise, of progeny isn't the leg to attack in this argument.

Overall we're both guilty of the sin of omission.., but, since I'm writing this, I'm gonna say you're more so than me.

I'm unclear as to what you feel I omitted.

 

[JMohegan]

Not vacation time, FMLA time off - an option for both parents, at many companies though not all.

I'm in the states, east coast.

The problem with paid maternity leave is that employees who don't have newborns effectively subsidize the raising of other people's kids. Which is nice for new parents, but tends to piss off everybody else. I don't see this as a respect issue; I see it as an economic fairness issue, and it's tough.

Yeah, FMLA is 12 weeks unpaid... that's pretty much the worst maternity leave in the civilized world (and most "uncivilized" parts).

So are you saying that society shouldn't support families? Without families, there wouldn't be a society.

I'm all for people who choose not to have children. They should have support in other ways... but take a look at that link I provided. It's pretty sad that we literally have some of the worst maternity leave in the world. I think that speaks volumes about our priorities.

I'm saying that the equity issues involved in paid maternity leave are complicated.

Supporting families with newborns is good. So is supporting the mental and physical health of employees of all ages. So is support for a lot of other things, but regrettably, choices have to be made. So this topic raises myriad equity issues, such as:

Why would a company's money be better spent on paid maternity leave than on increased health benefits for all employees? Why is time off for a new parent more important than time off to care for a relative who's critically ill? Why is it more fair to give paid leave to a new mom, even if she already has the financial means to take that leave unpaid?

I looked at your link, but unfortunately the information is far too cursory to be meaningful.

 

[JMohegan]

Re: FMLA --

What about a bonus? It would be whatever amount is deemed for family leave and if you don't end up taking the time, then you get the money in a lump sum at the end of the year.

An outstanding idea from an equity perspective, but possibly tough to fund.

If you're Google, and you're already serving free sushi in the employee cafeteria because you've got just that much money lying around and nothing to do with it, then that works great.

But if your budget's tight, then you're making hard choices about employee compensation. The only way to fund such a bonus would be to lower wages and salaries for everyone, pre-bonus. Which would make the bonus sound good on paper, but effectively just bring everyone back to where they were in the first place.



ETA - Teknight - nothing wrong with a graduate degree in econ and ivory tower theorizing, but in the real world real people tend to care about very practical issues surrounding employee benefits.

 

[infinity706]

What is feminism?

The fact that I can sit here and post my thoughts freely and be respected and conversed with intellectually even though I'm nearly naked in my avatar.

That's badass right there, it is.

/end thread

Well, you do have a nice ass to go with those brains, though.

Now, as for this dollars and cents argument on the net worth of infants, that's exactly how I'd frame the argument as well except for one thing. It fails to take into account, the outliers. There's certainly weird cases like Bill Gates that end up being worth far more than you'd expect, based on their choices. It's not like being a college dropout is a typical marker for making a fortune.

 

[teknight]

An outstanding idea from an equity perspective, but possibly tough to fund.

If you're Google, and you're already serving free sushi in the employee cafeteria because you've got just that much money lying around and nothing to do with it, then that works great.

But if your budget's tight, then you're making hard choices about employee compensation. The only way to fund such a bonus would be to lower wages and salaries for everyone, pre-bonus. Which would make the bonus sound good on paper, but effectively just bring everyone back to where they were in the first place.



ETA - Teknight - nothing wrong with a graduate degree in econ and ivory tower theorizing, but in the real world real people tend to care about very practical issues surrounding employee benefits.

Yes, but, you see, determining where those benefits go falls into the hands of people like me- or it had better.

Well, you do have a nice ass to go with those brains, though.

Now, as for this dollars and cents argument on the net worth of infants, that's exactly how I'd frame the argument as well except for one thing. It fails to take into account, the outliers. There's certainly weird cases like Bill Gates that end up being worth far more than you'd expect, based on their choices. It's not like being a college dropout is a typical marker for making a fortune.

Actually, because they are outliers, they fuck up every model that tries to estimate and predict wealth and income. It's something like 10 individuals (so, 10 observations) that give the models gigantic variance. Maybe the whole college degree thing isn't as grand as you might think?

 

[infinity706]

Oh, having a college degree is no guarantee of high earnings, either. I have 3 of them and I'm currently making $7.25 an hour, as a truckstop maintenance guy. Shit happens, but it's not like people fit into a perfect curve, anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

Yes, but, you see, determining where those benefits go falls into the hands of people like me- or it had better.

God, I hope this is humor.

Real world decisions on the allocation of benefits are made by A) government regulators, and B) the free market for labor.

PhD economists may try to influence the decision-making process, but unless they have a firm grasp on A) political realities, and/or B) real life factors actually driving real world compensation packages, they're gonna get nowhere.

 

[teknight]

God, I hope this is humor.

Real world decisions on the allocation of benefits are made by A) government regulators, and B) the free market for labor.

PhD economists may try to influence the decision-making process, but unless they have a firm grasp on A) political realities, and/or B) real life factors actually driving real world compensation packages, they're gonna get nowhere.

Free market!- you're funny....in the presence of politics and gov't intervention, along with the reality of there not being too many competitors for any given product, the end result is anything but a free market...but, I digress.

Those gov't regulators had better have some notion of econ and not just their own ideological horses. Some of them will actually have a background in econ. Economists don't just hide in Ivory towers, allegedly they do exist in the real world.

I'm not trying to say we're in any way perfect, but who are you going to leave issues of compensation, and inherently, value, to? I'm not saying they should reach out of the Ivory towers (although, they do, and sometimes their impact is tremendous), but I'm talking about the economists involved in day to day business.

Never mind, this is not a thread about how awesome Economists is.

 

[JMohegan]

Free market!- you're funny....in the presence of politics and gov't intervention, along with the reality of there not being too many competitors for any given product, the end result is anything but a free market...but, I digress.

Those gov't regulators had better have some notion of econ and not just their own ideological horses. Some of them will actually have a background in econ. Economists don't just hide in Ivory towers, allegedly they do exist in the real world.

I'm not trying to say we're in any way perfect, but who are you going to leave issues of compensation, and inherently, value, to? I'm not saying they should reach out of the Ivory towers (although, they do, and sometimes their impact is tremendous), but I'm talking about the economists involved in day to day business.

Never mind, this is not a thread about how awesome Economists is.

This thread is about feminism, and my view on feminism is that the practical issues are the only ones that ultimately matter.

The practical reality is this. The most highly educated, highly skilled females in our society often get great compensation packages - including 6 weeks of paid maternity leave, salaries sufficient to hire top nannies, generous health benefits, 3 weeks of paid vacation each year, and access to cafeteria plans through which the rest of us partially subsidize their child care expenses.

They enter the free market, companies compete to attract them, and that's what they get.

In contrast, the least educated, least skilled females in our society get low or part-time wages, if that. These are the women who need the most help, but these are the women who are least likely to get it.

So let's say you get a chance to address a joint session of congress on the subject of maternity benefits. What would you recommend? What laws should be passed to help families with newborn children?

 

[teknight]

This thread is about feminism, and my view on feminism is that the practical issues are the only ones that ultimately matter.

The practical reality is this. The most highly educated, highly skilled females in our society often get great compensation packages - including 6 weeks of paid maternity leave, salaries sufficient to hire top nannies, generous health benefits, 3 weeks of paid vacation each year, and access to cafeteria plans through which the rest of us partially subsidize their child care expenses.

They enter the free market, companies compete to attract them, and that's what they get.

In contrast, the least educated, least skilled females in our society get low or part-time wages, if that. These are the women who need the most help, but these are the women who are least likely to get it.

So let's say you get a chance to address a joint session of congress on the subject of maternity benefits. What would you recommend? What laws should be passed to help families with newborn children?

Wanna move this to an econ and feminism thread? I feel like I'm hijacking the topic.

If is truly the free market determining the high level women's compensation and benefits, then you're not subsidizing them in any way. That's the level of compensation they go for, it's what they deserve and not a penny more.

Addressing Congress? I'm foreign, they won't listen to me....not to mention that I am ultimately of the view that gov't intervention is inefficient and thus wrong, to an extent.
As for low income mothers: it's probably a bit late to bump up their education level...not saying they're dumb, but, realistically, we're not all students, especially when you have life getting in the way. Even with a higher/better/more apt education for their job market, they'll still wind up with lower incomes, 'cause they're joining the game later (econ's at work here ), so it's still gonna be unfair for them. Besides, is it really fair? Why should I compensate for their shortcomings? (I have a very liberal econ bend, and I'll explain that in a second). If anything I'd try to implement transfer payment with the incentives skewed to get people to seek jobs and not stay on the dole, and I'd determine the effectiveness of the scheme empirically

*What I mean by liberalism:
US politics has completely and utterly hijacked and destroyed the word, in part by associating politics with morals. I'm sorry, but I know politicians are immoral (if not amoral), and I dont want them dictating my morals. The term liberal is associated with socialism, which is retarded, on account of the fact that liberalism and socialism, as they concern matters of government are at odds with one another: socialism sees a role for a high degree of g'ovt intervention, whereas liberalism seeks a laissez faire sort of approach...Granted, laissez faire fails, but that alone is no excuse for piling on more oversight and bureaucracy than necessary).

 

[JMohegan]

Wanna move this to an econ and feminism thread? I feel like I'm hijacking the topic.

If is truly the free market determining the high level women's compensation and benefits, then you're not subsidizing them in any way. That's the level of compensation they go for, it's what they deserve and not a penny more.

Addressing Congress? I'm foreign, they won't listen to me....not to mention that I am ultimately of the view that gov't intervention is inefficient and thus wrong, to an extent.
As for low income mothers: it's probably a bit late to bump up their education level...not saying they're dumb, but, realistically, we're not all students, especially when you have life getting in the way. Even with a higher/better/more apt education for their job market, they'll still wind up with lower incomes, 'cause they're joining the game later (econ's at work here ), so it's still gonna be unfair for them. Besides, is it really fair? Why should I compensate for their shortcomings? (I have a very liberal econ bend, and I'll explain that in a second). If anything I'd try to implement transfer payment with the incentives skewed to get people to seek jobs and not stay on the dole, and I'd determine the effectiveness of the scheme empirically

*What I mean by liberalism:
US politics has completely and utterly hijacked and destroyed the word, in part by associating politics with morals. I'm sorry, but I know politicians are immoral (if not amoral), and I dont want them dictating my morals. The term liberal is associated with socialism, which is retarded, on account of the fact that liberalism and socialism, as they concern matters of government are at odds with one another: socialism sees a role for a high degree of g'ovt intervention, whereas liberalism seeks a laissez faire sort of approach...Granted, laissez faire fails, but that alone is no excuse for piling on more oversight and bureaucracy than necessary).

Which country are you from?

The point of my hypothetical question re Congress was to get your opinion on maternity leave benefits - specifically what, from a practical perspective, should be done. You said that determining an appropriate allocation of benefits should be made by people like you, so I'm asking. What should be done?

If you don't like government intervention, then what do you suggest? Is the situation in your country optimal at this time? If not, what specific changes would you recommend? To whom would you recommend them, and what incentive would they have for implementing whatever it is that you suggest?


[As an aside, a quick explanatory note on U.S. cafeteria plans. If offered by an employer, such plans enable an employee to set aside pre-tax money for certain health and dependent care expenses. Therefore, when I referenced "the rest of us" subsidizing child care expenses for such an employee, I was referring to that favorable tax effect.]

 

[teknight]

Which country are you from?
Romania.

The point of my hypothetical question re Congress was to get your opinion on maternity leave benefits - specifically what, from a practical perspective, should be done. You said that determining an appropriate allocation of benefits should be made by people like you, so I'm asking. What should be done?

The allocation of benefits would be determined by someone like me, but, I can't say that I have enough data to do anything other than talk out my ass.
I can ask a few poignant (I hope) questions:
What is the optimal amount of time a mom should spend with her newborn? (too vague of a question, but a fair one)
What'd be the cost to the company from losing her input in particular, and a woman's in general? Does "birth-related-absenteeism" affect employee morale and possibly productivity?
If society deems childcare to be important, then should government subsidize child care, maybe via vouchers and such? In a way, it's already doing so with a public education system. Parents can go to work, in part, 'cause they don't have to watch the kid 24/7.

If you don't like government intervention, then what do you suggest? Is the situation in your country optimal at this time? If not, what specific changes would you recommend? To whom would you recommend them, and what incentive would they have for implementing whatever it is that you suggest?

Optimal for corruption, yes.
Overhauling the legal system in a radical fashion, so that the old "guard" loses authority...although I'm not sure who'd replace them. Also, revamping the legal system with an emphasis on ownership rights, clarity and simplicity (until the lawyers come into the pic, anyway).

Incentives? Hmm...those could be tailored, to an extent: maybe you could be given an option: something like, if you've been a good citizen (taxes, yadda, yadda, not necessarily criminal activity...(?)) and performed your work for the gov't (assuming you work in the public, not private sector) well or above x standard (although that would be a fucked up incentive right there), maybe you'll pay less taxes later on life? Maybe you could get a specific part of your taxes back each year, or every nth year?

[As an aside, a quick explanatory note on U.S. cafeteria plans. If offered by an employer, such plans enable an employee to set aside pre-tax money for certain health and dependent care expenses. Therefore, when I referenced "the rest of us" subsidizing child care expenses for such an employee, I was referring to that favorable tax effect.]

Oh...didn't know that, thanks for explaining....although I'll nitpick and say that pre-tax money is still my own, and not the shared property of the commonwealth. The gov't hasn't gotten its hands on it yet, so it doesn't feel like a subsidy....Then again, I don't feel entitled to every last cent of someone else's money, only 'cause I might get some benefit from it once the gov't uses it....

 

[Netzach]

Romania, it's understandable that socialism might be itch inducing.

When you are doing truckstop maintenance with your degree the laissez faire kool aid will be less sweet, I imagine.

I just found something kind of cool, it's cheap insurance (200 a mo) for an individual that covers a shitload of stuff but not delivery and obstetrics. Basically the "we don't pay for you to get pregnant" option. Which frankly seems fair to me, reproduction is more alternative than whether you are gender dysphoric and no one pays for that at all.

 

[Keroin]

I just found something kind of cool, it's cheap insurance (200 a mo) for an individual that covers a shitload of stuff but not delivery and obstetrics. Basically the "we don't pay for you to get pregnant" option. Which frankly seems fair to me, reproduction is more alternative than whether you are gender dysphoric and no one pays for that at all.

That's an interesting idea.

In N. America, for the most part, having a child really is a choice. And while I agree that it benefits all of us to ensure that kids and parents are looked after to promote stable families, I admit I have mixed feelings about the issue. Personally, I would like to see a world with less people. We are not doing a very good job with the current population, specifically in regards to the environment, (that is to say, we are shitting where we sleep and eat), so encouraging more people to join the party strikes me as counter-productive.

What about government incentives for not having children? Where's my bonus for doing my part to reduce the spread of rampant consumerism and keep the carbon footprint low? (Yes, those are tongue-in-cheek questions).

On a side note, I once worked at a place where the staff was mostly women and about 50/50 moms. The mom's automatically got holidays off - Xmas, Easter, long weekend stat days, etc - by virtue of the fact that they had kids and therefore those days were more important for them. This meant that the rest of us could bank on getting stuck working those days, regardless of what plans we had and how important they might be to us. In the big picture, I can see why this was a good idea but at the time it definitely created a workplace rift and some genuine animosity. The childless faction of the staff felt as if they were being punished for their choice not to have kids. Interesting.

 

[infinity706]

I wouldn't even know what a holiday off is like. I haven't had one in over 3 years of working. I have gotten quite a few weekends off, though, not that I actually do anything special on weekened days.

 

[BiBunny]

It's the people who think having children is a right that bother me. No, actually, it's not.

 

[JMohegan]

The allocation of benefits would be determined by someone like me, but, I can't say that I have enough data to do anything other than talk out my ass.
I can ask a few poignant (I hope) questions:
What is the optimal amount of time a mom should spend with her newborn? (too vague of a question, but a fair one)
What'd be the cost to the company from losing her input in particular, and a woman's in general? Does "birth-related-absenteeism" affect employee morale and possibly productivity?
If society deems childcare to be important, then should government subsidize child care, maybe via vouchers and such? In a way, it's already doing so with a public education system. Parents can go to work, in part, 'cause they don't have to watch the kid 24/7.

Romania, wow. The disparities in history of development and per capita GNI between our countries make my comments to you seem barely relevant.

Your questions are good, but the bolded ones in particular are the type contemplated by private companies in deciding whether to grant anything more than legally mandated benefits to employees, per my observation and personal experience. Also contemplated: if we pay for extended maternity leave, where will that money come from? How pissed off will non-parent employees be when they learn of the disparity in benefits, and how will that effect retention, morale, productivity? And so on.

 

[satindesire]

Do non parents really get upset at having to pay for maternity leave?

 

[JMohegan]

Do non parents really get upset at having to pay for maternity leave?

Yes, of course.

Everyone has a budget, everyone has personal priorities and financial needs.

Why should the financial needs of a parent with a newborn be valued more highly than the financial needs of someone else?

 

[teknight]

That's an interesting idea.

In N. America, for the most part, having a child really is a choice.
See, in Romania they force them down your throat. LOL


And while I agree that it benefits all of us to ensure that kids and parents are looked after to promote stable families, I admit I have mixed feelings about the issue. Personally, I would like to see a world with less people. We are not doing a very good job with the current population, specifically in regards to the environment, (that is to say, we are shitting where we sleep and eat), so encouraging more people to join the party strikes me as counter-productive.

Actually, the rate of population growth slows down pretty much as soon as GDP/capita approaches $10,000...in other words, don't be alarmed, there won't be as many of us as there might be . And really, even having 2 kids keeps the population stable or decreasing.


What about government incentives for not having children? Where's my bonus for doing my part to reduce the spread of rampant consumerism and keep the carbon footprint low? (Yes, those are tongue-in-cheek questions). Phew. You had me ready to go internet-poster crazy there for a second.

On a side note, I once worked at a place where the staff was mostly women and about 50/50 moms. The moms automatically got holidays off - Xmas, Easter, long weekend stat days, etc - by virtue of the fact that they had kids and therefore those days were more important for them. This meant that the rest of us could bank on getting stuck working those days, regardless of what plans we had and how important they might be to us. In the big picture, I can see why this was a good idea but at the time it definitely created a workplace rift and some genuine animosity. The childless faction of the staff felt as if they were being punished for their choice not to have kids. Interesting.
Well, then, you should have had kids! . Kidding.

Silly forum, I left my comments in the quotes!!

 

[Netzach]

Do non parents really get upset at having to pay for maternity leave?

No, I didn't care about leave at all.

Having to stay when everyone else's kid had a runny nose or a soccer game was intolerable though. My real work was artwork dependent on making my day gig a DAY gig, and no one ever respected this. Ever.

 

[Seurat]

I wouldn't even know what a holiday off is like. I haven't had one in over 3 years of working. I have gotten quite a few weekends off, though, not that I actually do anything special on weekened days.

Agreed. What's a holiday? I work for a place that is open 24/7, and no day is more important than any other, except to the people at the top, who can take off when they want. Perks of the position.

 

[WriterDom]

Do non parents really get upset at having to pay for maternity leave?

In the corporate world? Who would give a flying fuck? Maybe in a small business it would be a burden on some. But if she is a good employee, people are accommodating. What happens a lot of times is that she'll have one then as a family they decide they want another right away. Sound familiar sd? Then she might drop out of the full time working world for ten years or so and return later. Hence, the tragic, unfair, greedy salary differences gets skewed between men and women. But no one wants to talk about that when it's "convenient" to toss out raw data and roar from the feminazi soapbox.