Effectively, reading comprehension is a skill never to be apprehended by you. Different does not apply an abject or negative connotation, that is done by the mind lacking in perceptive capability and/or critical thinking.

Different applies as “cannot be the same” … and considering the depth to which all animals are unwitting slaves of their own biochemistry, they can never be the same. Society attempts to yoke outcome to falsifiable perception; but that will never make any outcome factual.

I guess one sex is just more equal then the other, right?

Ah, yes, this is the beginning of the end; reductio ad absurdum. Thank you for that clarification.

If you cannot answer my one question, asking why this choice deserves special treatment, then we are done here.

That you are not comprised of the intellectual acuity to understand this “why”, says enough.

“Life is a flame that is always burning itself out, but it catches fire again every time a child is born”

There is nothing further that needs be said.

You basically said that men should serve a different purpose then women.

Effectively, your argument has devolved into “women are better at caring for children then men are, but men are better at nothing then women”. Which, is false on the first count. Probably correct (aside from being athletes) on the second count.

If women really are better at caring for children then men, then why do these “lets celebrate a choice” laws include men? Sounds like a pretty sexist comment to me.

I guess one sex is just more equal then the other, right?

If you cannot answer my one question, asking why this choice deserves special treatment, then we are done here.

Ummm, how bad is your reading comprehension? That is not at all what I stated. Trying reading the post and not assuming into it whatever you like, for starters.

I never stated “men better, women worse”. Further, talk about Strawman fallacy, for fuck’s sake, have someone read the post to you.

Genetically, male and female are separated. Perhaps you never heard of biochemistry or genetics, but from the most essential level of “living being”, male and female are separate and different. Plain fact.

As a male of 6′ 0″ and roughly 200 lbs, I’ve not met but one female with like dimensions. Even then, she lacked my bone mass and muscle mass. She was still human, I am on occasion.

Female bears children, male can never. Female has built in biochemistry and functional structures for nuturing a neonatal, male doesn’t. Female has a much higher oxytocin dump; around birth, two to three times the amount a male ever produces.

It’s rather simple really, different functions within the species, making certain traits exclusive by sex, but also, traits that create the need to overlap socially for the optimum outcome of the species.

That aside, this has nothing to do with anything but the attempt at leveling expressions of power. Social contract makes a very poor guise for any agenda.

To be more specific, sickness benefits, or those you have no choice over, should be covered. Those make perfect sense, and I have no problem with them. But this is a choice you make, and that is what sets maternaty/paternaty leave aside from illness leave.

I’m on the fence about a family member being sick though. I can see some leeway being a good thing, but it shouldn’t be mandated. If you must take care of the family member, as in, the only caregiver, then I can be on side with that. But if its because they are in the hospital, and you are only there as moral support, then I would disagree with mandating it.

Choice is not the same as illness.

Which, of course, I disagree with. I think if you got some better data, you would find equality given all of the same constraints. The studies I have seen on this matter all use an overarching set of data. They don’t get specific at all, and pose some ideas, but can’t really prove anything. As others who have posted in this thread have said, pay in larger companies is set, and cannot be changed regardless of how sexist a manager may be. In smaller companies, where pay is negotiable, I still doubt any form of sexism. I would say the scales are flat. You can always find the oddball case, but for every one of those, you can find 100 more on the side of it being even.

And that still doesn’t answer my question of why does having children get special privileges that other choices do not?

“Generally, the Act ensures that all workers are able to take extended leaves of absence from work to handle their own or an immediate family member’s serious health condition without fear of being terminated from their jobs by their employers or being forced into a lower job upon their return.”

Brian, do you think society would be better off without these protections?

According to Wikipedia, only five countries, including the US and Australia, don’t provide paid maternity leave. In the US, it’s a benefit, like paid tuition and health insurance.

This type of subject matter always falls down into the appeasement syndrome; the weak, abject and unfit calling for equivocation under the guise of equalisation.

There is a reason for the disparities; men and women are not equal, and genetically, can never be. If individuals would look at the phenomenological world as it is, it becomes apparent; male and female are distinctly different and possessed of traits that are at once mutually exclusive and mutually beneficial.

Because humans are in a state of believing their superiority to all of nature, false assumptions become prevalent.

The scales never quite tipped, neither are they ever perfectly level.

But, alas, you are still stawmaning me. Don’t worry, its such an easy trap to fall in to.

If you read my previous posts, you will see me agreeing that women should be encouraged to do whatever they want to do, and men to do whatever they want to do (even if its seen as feminin). Notice how you are all saying that men don’t want to do womens work? Why do you think I pointed out men doing tasks they want instead of what they are pressured to? But we don’t need to reward people for the choices they make. I encourage you to pop that bubble and come outside. Its nice out here.

For some reason, raising children has become some “special” area, where men shouldn’t do it, and women should, and therefor we should reward everyone for that. Fix the problem, don’t toss a bandaid on it.

Ultimately, the arguement presented by many above is that stereotyping is OK, and it should be rewarded. That, because its “womens work”, we should then be providing hand outs. How about “mens work”? What if I wanted to go cut down some trees for a year. I should get paid for that. And I should get my job back. Thats a stereotypical “mans work”, and because its “mans work” women wont do it, and therefor, it should get special treatment.

No individual choices should ever be rewarded. Think about the people who don’t make that choice, or cannot make that choice to have children. How exactly is that non-discriminatory to them to provide handouts to those who make the choice?

How about, if I was a “black male”. The stereotype is that they always steal and live off of welfare. Because stealing is a stereotype that white women won’t do, does that mean that going to jail should be paid for by their employer?

Its a choice issue, not a gender issue. You are attempting to wrap a choice issue in a gender wrapping. While I am not well versed in logical fallacies, I know there is one here somewhere. At the very least, I can see special pleading.

You argue that these “time off” laws are not because its “womens work” since they are generic to men and women. Then someone else argues that they are there because of social pressures on _WOMEN_. Which is it? Is it the parents that can have the time off (male OR female), and if so, what makes that choice special? Or is it that its for women only because of pressure, where I can ask, why are you not fixing the problem, but making it worse? What gives anyone the right to say the stereotype is OK, on either side?

Why isn’t having a baby v. having a career a choice? Answer me that. Why can one have a child, and a career as illustrious as those who don’t have a baby, but other choices that are at the detriment of the person making that choice not worthy of special circumstances? If you answer only one thing, answer that. What makes the choice of having a baby special above other choices?

And as for Jimmy – I have never seen a case where women are just ignored because they are a woman. It is all perception. Men have to fight against the women just as much. I would argue in the other direction, that men have to fight against this perception you are talking about. That women get promoted first, against a fear of being labeled sexist. Do I honestly believe that? No. People’s work speaks for itself. Especially in school, when its all about grades. When your papers or exams are marked, they’re with a number, not with your name. I can see it in work places, but in the extreme minority. From your wording of “seeing the truth”, I can tell that you have some “special knowledge”. Perhaps you would share it with me instead of posturing.

Instead of fixing the problem by making it worse, we could remove those barriers, then the women who are driven to have a career will have to sacrifice being a housewife for a year, and the stereotype will disappear over generations, or even over a few decades. Remove the stereotype of the man staying home, and I suspect you will see it move much quicker. The worst of the two, in my opinion, is the stereotype of the man being a bum when he stays home. Fix that, and you will fix the problem.

I wouldn’t argue that point, if you are coming from the perspective of “human nature from genetic impetus”.

I’m not certain on the PC issue. It was 2004, (don’t quote me, that might be wrong), when UD of Ohio and Texas A&M released the results of a joint study concerning the effects of the PC culture as regards campus racism.

What they both found was that the PC culture didn’t change anything. The race groups studied were white/black/hispanic/asian. What they found was that in mixed race groups, under the PC pressures, racism was completely hidden; but when the students were among “like kind”, that all the groups equally showed racist dialog and behaviors.

It would be likely that the gender/sexism issue would be patently similar, if as you pointed out, the bias could be controlled to get an objective study.

It is likely you are correct, it would be rather arduous.

Also, just for fun:

http://xkcd.com/385/

(Sorry, I don’t know enough about HTML to make it a hyperlink)