AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > January > 12 > Entry
Is maternal profiling a problem in the workplace?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Auto service technician Mailyn Pickler is fired a week after she tells her dealership that she ‘s pregnant. The boss informs her that it wouldn’t be prudent to drive the shuttle bus in her condition. Kohl’s employee Teresa Lehman gained high marks for a decade, and was assured she was on track to become store manager. Then the mother of two saw five managerial positions go to less experienced employees who were childless or indicated they would have no more children.
“Maternal Profiling,” selected by the New York Times as one of their 2007 buzzwords, is definitely alive and well. Popularized by advocacy group momsrising.org, it’s “employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children.”
“Family Responsibilities Discrimination” is the more inclusive term used at Work Life Law, a center at Hastings College of Law in California. It astutely acknowledges that not all employers who discriminate against mothers are men, and not all caregivers in need of family-friendly policies are women.
Yet mothers still get hit hardest with bias due to presumptions surrounding their caregiver status. The center’s deputy director, Cynthia Thomas Calvert, helped me sort through some common offenses: Pregnant women being fired for trumped-up reasons; interview questions designed to weed out mothers and other caregivers; performance reviews designed to eliminate those employees, whether or not work has actually been affected.
Laws are in place to address these grievances, yet laws are not always followed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a nearly 40 percent increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints since 1992, even though the birthrate has been dropping. No wonder momsrising.org and the Work Life Law Center are just two of many thriving organizations designed to advocate for families, as well as assist companies grappling with this issue.
We should sympathize with the unique challenges of creating a family-friendly work environment. Yet our nation requires it, now more than ever. The recent spike in unemployment and the threat of recession puts any employee with a perceived “domestic deficit” even further at risk. As employees increasingly take on the care of aging parents in addition to their own offspring, let’s continue to find solutions that work for both companies and caregivers.
Rebuttal
I get furious when I hear a Kohl’s manager asked Teresa Lehman, “Did you get your tubes tied?” after she had three kids in four years. So, apparently, was the jury in her case: they awarded her $2.1 million.
But offensive statements aside, there’s often an uncomfortable but legitimate business dynamic at work in situations that look like “maternal profiling.” It’s easy to see something as discrimination that is actually a legitimate result of how women with families often choose to work. That’s not maternal profiling; its maternal preference.
If a mom chooses a less-intense job that allows her pick up Johnny at 5:30 p.m., for example, and simply can’t tackle late-night meetings or last-minute travel, she’ll probably be paid and promoted less than her peers who pull the all-nighter to get the client deal finished. It is frustrating for the sidelined mom, but she is getting the benefit that she prioritizes most: Family time instead of money.
Childcare duties are more evenly distributed today, but the fact remains that most women want to be there for their kids. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives found that 71 percent of women would rather have more flexibility and benefits than a higher wage, and almost 85 percent took flexible work arrangements when they were offered. Andy says we need a solution, but the increasing availability of part-time and flexible work arrangements is a solution. Unfortunately, those arrangements are often simply less productive and convenient for the company. We shouldn’t penalize a progressive company by insisting that they pay and promote those employees the same!
Teresa Lehman was apparently a respected Kohl’s employee, tracking toward management, but she had several small children, including one who tragically died. I couldn’t find specific information on her case, but isn’t it possible that she needed several years of special accommodation for time off work, medical visits, and wasn’t able to work the long hours her peers could?
As Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum said in an interview, “I would hope employers would be able to work with [women with family realities], but they have hired employees to work, not just out of the goodness of their heart, and they have to think about their bottom line.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Ann-nn
January 13, 2008 12:26 AM | Link to this
http://index5.dumaki.com >loemans http://index8.dumaki.com >may 8th wall street journel http://index1.dumaki.com >the pragmatist august 1988 http://index4.dumaki.com >life is good t-shirts http://index3.dumaki.com >fresh news http://index2.dumaki.com >krikorian buena park metroplex jobs http://index10.dumaki.com >hurriyet http://index9.dumaki.com >nashville elders books scandal http://index7.dumaki.com >shotguns model 410 pump for sale http://index6.dumaki.com >wedding on vedio
By Shannon, M.Div.
January 13, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
What amazes me is how Feldhahn fails to respond to Sarvady’s issue and example, preferring instead to talk about a tangential issue. Maternal “preference” is not that to which Sarvady referred. Not all women choose to give up their careers when they become parents, just as not all men choose to give up their careers when they become parents. That should be the option of the women, not the option of the employer, bottom line.
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
Not all women, but a darned lot of women. You can say that yeah, there are men who stay home with the kids, etc, but the honest truth is that it’s usually the women who are responsible. It’s not a pretty fact. I think the problem arises from idiot employers who just want to see a warm body in a chair. Working longer hours does not equal more work produced—-unless you’re a factory worker. Half the time those “dependable” employees who are in the office are surfing the net or otherwise goofing off.
Bosses just like to see little worker drones there when they arrive, and still at the desk when they leave, or they get resentful. The office model is built around the 1950’s era when men worked and women stayed home, there’s no reason to cling to such nonsense.
Off topic—can anyone explain why this is the only AJC blog which constantly displays spam?
By chuck
January 14, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Shannon, I think you missed the point of Shaunti’s response. She did specifically address the greivous example cited by Sarvady AND she agreed with her assessment. Shaunti spoke to the bigger issue of CHOICE. Parents make sacrifices for their children…Dads AND Moms. I have a good friend who left administration as an assistant principal of a high school because he wanted to spend more time with his kids. He was on track to becoming a principal in a couple of years but he decided his family was more important. My wife postponed her teaching career until both of our kids were teens. It made more sense for us that she was the one to do so because I was already teaching and had advanced degrees which meant that I made more money.
Sorry, but the truth is YOU CAN’T have it all. I see the result of this attempt all the time. These kids get everything they want from their parents EXCEPT TIME. It’s really a shame. While it cost our family considerably in the way of income, I’m glad for our children that they were raised by their parents and NOT some daycare.
By gale
January 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
I agree with chuck. You cannot have it all. Having children is a choice. The company does not make that choice for you. The company should not treat singles any different from people with children. However, likewise, the company should not make the choice about how much time you spend with your family. And, the company should not assume your work will suffer because you have children. It is an idividual matter. Reasonable accomodations have been legislated. If your company wants too many hours and your family suffers, you have a choice to make. There are other jobs.
By Jose Arcadio
January 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
It puts extra work on the people that do not have children. They have to take up the slack because you had to leave early because little Johnny has a check-up, or because Little Johnny got suspended from school.
By Omega
January 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
Hi! omega replica watch http://forums.heywatch.com/users/137 omega replica watch
By chuck
January 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
Gale, the statement you made is very true:
the company should not assume your work will suffer because you have children.
I agree with that completely. I do think, however, that companies should be able to use HISTORICAL evidence concerning your performance and propensity to do less or miss more time because of your responsibilities to your children. If the company has observed that your own history shows how your work is affected and therefore believe that it will prevent you from the kind of job performance that they will need in terms of a new position or promotion that you have applied for, then I think it would be fair for them to deny a promotion or new position in that case. That would apply to men as well as women.
If I had an employee who missed too much time from work (for whatever reason and regardless of gender) I certainly should be able to use that as a determination in both hiring and promotion decisions. I should not be denied that right as an employer just because the REASON the employee missed was related to raising a child.
By Sali
January 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
I really have mixed feelings about this topic. I want women to have all the same benefits and money and chance to advance at work that men have. But I’m handling double work today because my “cell mate” is out with a sick kid. There’s a meeting of her group and she’s not here to do the preparation, so guess who! She’s a single mom with three kids under 10 and this happens pretty often. It does put a burden on the people who work with mothers and on the employer who depends on them to be there. Even when the father is around, it’s always the mom who is leaving work to pick up the sick kid, take them to their dental appt. or doctor appt, meet with teachers about problems, etc. because dad can’t take off from work!
By Debora
January 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
I have to agree with Salie and Jose. As a person who is childless, I always have to pick up the slack. And it gets old.
I worked for one company about 15 years ago, when I was in my mid-twenties, that chose families first when giving out holiday benefits. The company was a testing lab for doctors and had to remain open 365/24/7. All the people who wanted off (everybody) that had children were allowed all the holidays - Christmas, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, etc. Those of us without children were expected to work. They were honest and upfront about their views. The job was second shift, which allowed me to go to school during the day so I had to make the best of it for several years. After finishing my education and finding a good job, I resigned by post-card. I vowed to never spend another Christmas without my Mom and Dad, and never had in the last 15 years.
By JokesOn
January 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
chuck,
I agree with your posts 100%.
A business cannot expect someone with children to be out performed by co-workers, but if there is history of it taking place the employer should be able to weight that in when handing out raises/promotions.
Sali, I agree that the numbers are still skewed with women caring for the children more than their husbands. That seems like a relationship decision to me, is out of the employers hands, and can only be solved (if the couple even thinks that there is something to solve) in the relationship.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
I’m crying a bucket of taers for those who must back up fellow employees because they are out with a sick child or having one. I don’t think employers should fire females who get pregnant while working at their jobs. In this 2 income society we have created, what do they expect? Family comes first. Period. If you have to cover for someone who is out, suck it up and do it. They would for you.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
I’m crying a bucket of tears for those who must back up fellow employees because they are out with a sick child or having one. I don’t think employers should fire females who get pregnant while working at their jobs. In this 2 income society we have created, what do they expect? Family comes first. Period. If you have to cover for someone who is out, suck it up and do it. They would for you.
By Gandalf, the Grey
January 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
The employer owns the jobs, not the employee. Want to make millions and raise a family? Become self employed.
By Jeff
January 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
OK, realize as i say this that I am a 25 yr old male who is actively working with his wife to create some babies… (well, not ACTIVELY actively, DUH!)
I’m going to side with the companies on this one. I have seen it with my own eyes: a woman with kids is FAR more likely to be absent than a woman with no kids.
Absences hurt the bottom line. If an action hurts the bottom line, it is generally not good for business.
If an action is not good for business, EVERYONE could soon be out of a job.
Better to cut the weak link than have it destroy the entire company.
Oh, and something I didn’t mention above: I’m actually looking for a job closer to home so that I can spend more time with the family I’m working on adding some kids to. I LOVE my job and switching will probably mean FAR more headaches for me at the office, and POSSIBLY a pay cut as well. But as has been said: You do what is best for your family first.
By Debora
January 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Jack
Actually no, they wouldn’t and don’t. Frankly, I am sick of picking up their slack. I was out for two weeks helping my Mom when my Father had a CA and quad bypass in May. I came back to stacks. One coworker even came into my office and questioned why I had to be out for two weeks..”can’t your Mother take care of your Dad?”
By historian
January 14, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Of course, we only see the care mothers give their children as a PROBLEM for their employers now. We don’t value family. We don’t value taking care of each other. The only value in the corporate world (our true governing body) is the bottom line. Greed is our new state religion. The U.S. is plummeting economically! We, the citizens of America, watch our tax money being spent on a war started on lies and deception (while Halliburton and other companies are making billions!)and there’s no end in sight. We follow in the footsteps of Rome.
By Debora
January 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
It is not just the sick days. Not just leaving early or coming in late. It is the whole ball of wax. I am sick of this, “I have children, I am entitled” dogma and that they get out of everything. “I deserve the holidays more than you because I have kids” “I can’t give to the company charity events, I have kids to feed” “I can’t donate the baby shower, wedding shower, blah blah, I have kids to cloth” and yet the single folk are expected to whip out their wallets with pleasure.
By historian
January 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
It’s a PERSONAL relationship issue if mothers are forced to take off from work to take care of their kids. That is NOT the employer’s problem. It’s a BUSINESS issue if employees are taking off from work to take care of family matters. Business has no social responsibility. Business is not required or expected to care about people! Business is expected to use people until they are no longer of use and then kick them down the stairs! Heil Business! Heil Bottom Line! Screw people.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Debora. Should have torn that person a new one. I guess they would let their parent die. An employer should not offer holiday time off to parents with children over single folks. That’s disparity of treatment. I don’t agree with that. The Mrs. and I worked many holidays over the years when we had young children. Those who feel entitled should be entitled to work.
By Jose Arcadio
January 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Preach Debora! Single people are given a dirty look if they don’t want to buy candy for Little Johnny, or donate to Little Johnny’s little league, etc.
I can’t leave early, but it is okay for parents to leave early to go and pick up their children from school, day care, etc.
And I get penalized if I show up late to work, but it is okay if Little Johnny or Susie couldn’t get out of bed.
Simple answer to the problem: If there is a two income household, do like Chuck’s family did and one of you quit. People should stop trying to keep up with the Joneses, and live according to their means and budgets.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately, Historian is right. :(
By Markie
January 14, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Historian,
Expecting people to work the number of hours they agreed to when they took the job, do the actual work while they are there, is not screwing people. If you don’t want to work, don’t work but it is not the job of an employer to pay someone a salary and not get anything in return.
By socialscientist
January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Here we go again people. Angry singles who feel they’re taken advantage of by the people with children. Are people with families truly the ones who are taking advantage of you? It’s not the company/business is it? Angry people with children put in a double bind by having to work to live and having to raise kids with no help, no support and no empathy. Is it really single people causing your problems? It’s so much easier to feel angry toward a person, even when it’s the wrong person than that nebulous entity called “business.” Angry working mothers against angry stay-at-home mothers, each thinking the others are getting something they’re not getting. Us against us….again. It’s so easy to manipulate human beings and turn us against each other so we never, ever look at the real cause of our problems!
By Over Y'all.
January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
I’ve also heard moms who don’t work outside the home lament that all the PTA stuff, school volunteering, carpooling, practices, etc. fall on their shoulders, while selfish moms are at work. This too is valid, because they work just as hard as anyone, but without checks or promotions. Either way, whatever we do, we can’t win. Somebody’s b*** and whining: wah wah wah, and calling us the problem.
I was divorced when the conception occured. Had I aborted, I would have been labeled a murderer by my bible-thumping boss; but I was branded a sl-t and FIRED from my job when I chose to keep and raise it (having already earned a degree and begun a career) because clearly that made me incompetent and bad for business. I’ve been dealing with this crap ever since. Stay home with the child and I’m a deadbeat living off your hard-earned taxes. Work and provide and I’m an absentee parent not involved enough. No one gives me little gold stars when I take work home over the weekend to keep up, but leave half an hour early to get across town to the kid’s game, I’m the problem again. On behalf of unappreciated over-extended mothers everywhere: BITE US!
By Jen
January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
If they’re taking one of their entitled sick or vacation or PTO days then why is it a problem? Use it or lose it. You’re entitled to those 5-30 days (depending on job and tenure). Using it for a sick kid, whatever. Anyone who resents it is having a personal problem.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Uh…historian (aka Kimmie), while I wouldn’t agree that the economy of the U.S. is plummeting, because it just ISN’T, let’s look at the reasons the economy is not as strong as it could be.
1) American workers want more money for LESS WORK. 2) Unions 3) Out of control spending by ALL gov’t. State, Local, Feds. 4) Too much absenteeism at work 5) Lowest Productivity from American workers EVER. 6) Highest personal debt level in American History 7) Democrats going around telling the foolish people who listen to them how bad everything is.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
I think everyone is forgetting that the topic Andrea addressed is women pre-emptively being fired, demoted, not promoted, etc, based on their status as a parent. And it’s bogus.
I work full time. I supported my husband and son while my husband was in school and now he works full time.
Next week is an Early Release Day for our son’s school. I am currently low on PTO so my husband is going to care for him.
If our son got sick and I didn’t have PTO then either my husband would cover it or I would work from home or work extra hours. My performance has never suffered because of my family. There’s no one to take up the slack for me at work. I am the only person on my team who can do my job because it’s a highly technical skill. So, if I don’t do it then it doesn’t get done. And I have yet to turn anything in late or in subpar condition.
If your supervisor let’s Mom or Dad leave an hour early because the principal called then he should let Single Gal or Single Guy leave early to pick up the dog from the vet. In other words, if your boss is going to be human about stuff it needs to be fair.
But there does need to be more humanity in the office place.
By historian
January 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Markie, expecting your company to have some understanding that employees have a LIFE, (have heart attacks, prostate cancer, national guard service to fulfill, pregnancies, marriages, sick kids, sick parents) is not screwing the company. If you want your employees to do their best, you need to value your employees! But if you want to try to run a business by hiring only people with no life, no family, no children, no parents, no illnesses, good luck.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Markie, you don’t understand. According to the left, EVERYBODY should be able to do what they want to do and those HORRIBLE CORPORATIONS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. There is no discussion about this. It is a matter of fairness. After all, the CORPORATION forces us to have children. They can’t turn around and complain about it when we have to spend time with those little brats.
By Debora
January 14, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
Jen to a degree you are correct. People should be able to use their PTO time for whatever they want and whenever they want.
However, people who use up all of their PTO time for thier spouses and children (whether it be family vacation, illness, etc.) are seen as taking care of and supporting their family. The disparity for single people is always there. Taking two weeks to be with my Mom and Dad during his cardiac arrest and surgery was viewed as “excessive” by some of my coworkers. Taking off my birthday in the past, has been viewed by coworkers as narcissistic. Rude comments have always been made behind my back when I use my PTO for my animals and their care.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that the topic Andrea brought up is bogus. I meant that if it’s happening then it’s wrong. In other words, it bogus to pre-emptively fire, demote, not promote someone based on their status as a parent.
By Monica
January 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
In other words, if your boss is going to be human about stuff it needs to be fair. But there does need to be more humanity in the office place.
More humanity… what a concept…
Whether or not you are a parent, life happens, and sometimes you have to miss work or leave early. I wish that employers would realize that, though 9 times out of 10 the people we work for have to answer to someone else, who have to answer to someone else, and the humanity disappears the further up the chain. We all know what rolls downhill.
By Don't call me Kimmie
January 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
Chuck, you’re a doofus. “Historian” is not me, and don’t call me Kimmie. Further, I couldn’t possibly be less interested in your numbered lists, but if I had to speculate as to contributing factors to lowered productivity, I’d number them thusly: 1) An increasingly under-educated workforce, 2) Middle-class jobs going overseas, and 3) Internet access.
Now you may continue your whining about how the mean ol’ Democrats have ruined EVERYTHING! Wah wah wah wah wah.
By historian
January 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
…let’s look at the reasons the economy is not as strong as it could be.
1) American workers want more money for LESS WORK. Especially those at McDonald’s, Burger King, Walmart) 2) Unions (there are still unions? 3) Out of control spending by ALL gov’t. State, Local, Feds. (can’t argue with that and esp. in Iraq!) 4) Too much absenteeism at work (?) 5) Lowest Productivity from American workers EVER. (How can American workers be productive in jobs that are now in other countries?) 6) Highest personal debt level in American History 7) (perhaps some effect there) Democrats going around telling the foolish people who listen to them how bad everything is. (Republicans who have made everything really bad who were elected by foolish people!)
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
But notice in the examples men aren’t generally discriminated against if they have children; employers accurately perceive that women who are parents will be absent more than men who are parents. W
hy blame business when the Babydaddies of America (minus Jen’s husband) aren’t taking care of the kids? The male boss/co-worker slamming women for taking too much time off more than likely has benefited from a woman’s investment in childcare.
By impartial
January 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
“According to the left, EVERYBODY should be able to do what they want to do and those HORRIBLE CORPORATIONS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.” There goes Chuckie again having hysterics because anyone dares to question his religion - capitalism and greed. You are so silly….
By Jen
January 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Debora,
I have a problem when people judge others on how they take their PTO. It’s PTO! Paid Time Off! Most jobs it’s use it or lose it, too. No matter what, you’re entitled to take those days. Granted, if you have a huge project that needs to be submitted to a conference and the deadline is Feb 1 then you probably should take PTO, unless it’s a real emergency, until you have your part done!
But, I don’t care if you take your PTO to go to a hair appointment or to take care of your sick mom or because your kid brought a Tylenol to school and is being suspended…as long as you take your PTO.
Also, if someone has to leave early and can’t take PTO then as long as they make up the hours, and most importantly, get their work done then why not?
It’s always obvious when someone isn’t doing their job, no matter if they’re at their desk 50 hours a week or only 25….
By Jen
January 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
I also recognize that I don’t have a husband who has old fashioned expectations when it comes to marriage. He was raised solely by women (mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother) so he came to the table thinking we would be equal in all things married and parental.
It also helps that until this year I was making more then him….now we’re equal!
Wow, lots of equality going on…
;)
By chuck
January 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Kimmie, if calling you kimmie makes you mad I will definitely not call you kimmie. I know if I didn’t want to be called kimmie, I sure would be mad if people called me kimmie. Of course the name kimmie is not such a bad name as names go, but never the less, I will no longer type the name kimmie…at least until the next time.
By The Other Jack
January 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
It’s the same as smokers. Why do they get to take more breaks just because they smoke? I get 15 minutes in the morning and 15 in the afternoon, they get 15 minutes every hour!?
By Al Bumen
January 14, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
I think it’s great that we live in a country where we are free to have our kids raised by teenagers making minimum wage.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Hi Kim. Hope all is well with you. Haven’t harassed you in a while cause I didn’t want to start an avalanche. SMOOCH.
By Chilao
January 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
That’s right Al, and when our kids get in trouble because we were too busy chasing the almighty dollar and not loving them enough, we can always just blame the government, then when they are old enough we can just let the government take care of them. Win-win don’t ya think?
By chuck
January 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Actually it’s a sign of weakness for a man to make his wife work. A real man would be able to take care of his family on his own.
By kimmie
January 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
A woman’s job at home is priceless. To be able to take care of a household is something to be admired, not looked down upon like a 2nd class citizen. Hold your head high home-makers, don’t let the liberal-dem-commies tell you you are anything less than the greatest.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Actually it’s a sign of weakness for a man to make his wife work. A real man would be able to take care of his family on his own.
That sounds like someone wants to start a flaming contest….very transparent…
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I don’t know whether to cheer or say you’re sexist. At least you seem to acknowledge the point that if men want their wives to handle the house and kids, they should get out there and support the family. We have a generation of lazy males—not men—who are accustomed to spending their wives’ paychecks on SUV’s and other toys while laying about all weekend on the sofa. If this wasn’t true, Shaunti and Andrea would have nothing to write about.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
A man shouldn’t have to make his wife work but if she wants to why not? As the saying goes, if Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy.
By Chilao
January 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
I’d complain about some scumbag hijacking my moniker, but I have to go take a smoke. LOL
By Jose Arcadio
January 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
A lazy male? So the women’s movement was to benefit women only? Men are not allowed the option of staying home with the kids and raising them?
I know two different fathers that stay home with their sons, and teach them how to be men. The boys love it, and they actually have the benefit of their father being around all the time.
Does that make them less of a man? Ask their sons.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Jen, it sounds like the women in his life have trained him well. To a point I agree with you about PTO, but where does it end? Yes, EVERYBODY needs a vacation. Those days should be taken guilt free. What gets on my nerves is coworkers who take time off for the least little thing “just because they have the days”. That’s not what those days are for. I can guarantee you that if EVERYBODY took the days just because they have them, a lot of companies would not be able to survive.
By Lee
January 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
To be honest with you, I find that sometimes single people with no children can be very selfish and lack understanding of the responsibilities that parents have. I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.
By Lee
January 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
To be honest with you, I find that sometimes single people with no children can be very selfish and lack understanding of the responsibilities that parents have. I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
The 2:07 was not mine and I would guess that the 2:11 is not Kimberly either.
GeezGuys, my wife is a teacher. While it is true that she did not work until our kids were practically grown, she does have a job and works very hard at it.
By Jack
January 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Parenting children is like sex. If you haven’t “been there and done that” you don’t have a clue. Single Moms who raise their children with no help from “Daddy” deserve big time kudos.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I have to disagree. You’re entitled to your PTO. You earn them! Heck, MOST people work more than 40 hours a week. To expect them to NOT take all their PTO is a culture of absurdity.
I know that I work a 45-50 hour week. I don’t get overtime for it and I don’t get to take extra time off for it, either. But nobody better complain about taking my PTO!!!
By Jack
January 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Chuck, didn’t she home school your children?
By JokesOn
January 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Lee,
I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.
I understand where you are coming from, but seeing as having children is a choice, why does it matter how hard it is? I could choose to have 3 mortgages requiring me to be busy as he!!, but still have to do my job.
I had just started my career when my father died and I (ignorantly) mentioned at my performance evaluation that I would have to support/assist my mother during this adjustment period. My manager was polite, but she was also very clear that it was a personal issue and could not interfere with my work or influence my raise. I do not understand why others cannot comprehend this.
Would it be great IF companies paid their CEOs less, their employees more, and etc? Yes, but, short of a cultural change , that does not look probable.
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Ah, I see. So in addition to the spam, this forum has ID thieves. The dangers of modern-day blogs…
My point wasn’t that men shouldn’t stay home and raise kids, more power to ‘em if that’s what they want to do. Men are equally capable of taking care of the kids and house while a wife works. If she’s making more money or has a better career, that makes more sense. Or that women shouldn’t work, I’m sure Chuck is quite proud of his wife for both her career and raising the kids.
However, to expect your mate…wife, husband, whoever, to be responsible for most of the childcare and housework, plus work outside the home, is lazy. Men are the primary offenders in this area, that’s why the title of this blog refers to maternal profiling. Face it, do we really think employers are ducking around in interviews trying to figure out if a man plans on having kids?
By chuck
January 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack, yes she did.
By Debora
January 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Lee, you had them, you raise them. I am not responsible for raising your kids, feeding them, housing them, clothing them or educating them. If you didn’t have the financial, emotional or time capabilities to raise children, then you should have been responsible and not brought children into the world. This is 2008, we have birth control, not to mention personal restraint. But to feel other people should have to shoulder part or all of the responsibility for your family is absurd.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Jack, She also did pretty much everything else too while I was working on graduate degrees to make more money so it would be easier for her to stay home…WHICH BTW she wanted to do. We made those decisions BEFORE we got married. That’s really something in which you need to be on the same page. It really is best to make these decisions BEFORE you get married and especially before you have kids on the way. It probably would have been a dealbreaker for both of us if we hadn’t felt the same way about it.
I always counsel young people who are considering marriage to talk about these kinds of things before they get hitched. My wife and I will hit 29 years in August and we are still going strong.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Yes, I think the burden of homelife often falls more heavily on the wife/mom’s shoulders. I just got lucky in that department. My brothers and sister are all in more traditional marriages. All of my brothers (I have 3) wives stay at home with the kids. My sister is a physician and isn’t about to dump all those years of education and certification to stay at home full time and lose her chops but…she works part time. My brother-in-law is also a physician and takes the role of primary bread winner. In all those cases the Dad/husband works long hours and brings home the bacon and Mom/wife takes care of domestic needs.
My sister used to work full time and when she did it was the same…she handled most of the domestic duties. She didn’t like it and would complain. But my brother in law would say he was so tired when he got home and how is field of medicine (emergency/trauma) was more exhausting than hers (general/family) and that she should be more understanding….didn’t matter that her job was farther away and she worked the same hours or that the kids belonged to BOTH of them…
I don’t think I would stand for that…not if I had a full-time job…
By chuck
January 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
You are right GG, she did a great job as a homemaker and got a lot of practical experience teaching as well. She’s a really good math teacher and I am very proud of what she has accomplished. There aren’t many people who can go back to school as a 40 something year-old and make straight A’s to finish a degree that she had abandoned in about 1981. She has her Masters degree now and is about to start on her Specialist in Ed degree.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
I also think this sort of disparity in the work place between parents and the child-free is more apparent in a work place where people share duties. I work on a research team. Each member of the team has a unique skillset for accomplishing the research (everyone has a graduate degree and/or a professional degree). No one else on the team can really do anyone else’s job. So, when one person has to take time off their work doesn’t get shifted to someone else, who would resent it, potentially. It just sits and waits.
So, the result is that when people KNOW they’re going to be off they make sure and clear most things off their “inbox”, or at least send enough stuff back to team members that they won’t be waiting. In an emergency, it’s just a tough deal and everyone has to wait for that person to get back.
If someone was truly abusing the system and not doing their work, or lowering productivity, it would show up quick and only one person would be fingered for it.
But, I realize there are a lot of work environments NOT like mine…places where you have a group of people who do the same thing and share the workload…slackers will abound whether they are parents or not!
How about that single guy who parties all the time and gets a lot of hangovers and comes in late or not at all, taking a last-minute PTO, and putting everyone in a bind???
By Jack
January 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
30years for us. Rookie. LOL
By Monica
January 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Hi Chuck! I thought that I would be okay with me working and having children, so we made financial decisions based on two incomes. After my first was born, I really wanted to stay home, but we couldn’t afford it. I had a hard year that first year adjusting. Now that both boys are older, and my husband is only coaching one sport, it’s easier. It also helps having time off in the summer. I get the best of both worlds!
I have the utmost respect for single moms. Not only do you juggle all roles by yourself, you also deal with unsympathetic people at work who don’t understand that most moms don’t ask to be single mothers. I have a friend of mine whose husband died at age 38, leaving her with two small children to raise solo. She didn’t have any other family, so if one of the kids got sick, she had to take time off of work.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
I like being called a rookie Jack. It really does seem like just yesterday.
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck, you and your wife figuring things out ahead of time surely helped. I’d wager she’s happier with how things have worked out with the kids/home balance than say, Jen’s sister. Let’s not forget all the coworkers/bosses in this equation too, who didn’t have to pull up the slack.
I’m quite tired of the accusation that coworkers, bosses, random strangers, and the like should be sucking it up because you didn’t figure out how to have kids and take care of them. Kids require lots of attention—-at random times—-and making it up as you go along isn’t fair to the rest of us or your family.
By chuck
January 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica. We try as much as we can to live just off of my income Monica. It doesn’t always work out the way we want it too on that though. We use my wife’s income for “extra” stuff and emergencies and try to invest the rest but as I said, It doesn’t always work out that way. I know when mine were born, it was very difficult for me to leave them every morning. Especially those first few years. I got a little jealous of the bond that my wife developed with them as well. Teaching really did give me the opportunity to be around them more than a lot of fathers get to.
I’ll tell you this though Monica. Enjoy them while they are young because when you blink, all of a sudden they are 19 and 16 and actually have their own lives now. Cherish it while you can.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Monica, I like hearing your story because it’s not 1-D.
When my husband and I got married we were 23. At the time we thought we’d both get graduate degrees and THEN have children. I thought I’d work part-time. I never wanted to be a full time SAHM because I just didn’t think I ‘d be a happy momma that way.
But, then we found out that I was preggers during our Masters degree programs. It was time to make a choice.
If I still wanted to work part-time then that would mean my husband would have to stop at the Masters degree and get a job. Only, he wouldn’t actually make a good salary with HIS Masters where as I could make a REALLY good salary with mine (because it involves programming and math).
So, we revised our plan. I would terminate at the Masters level and he would go on to the PhD level so he could get a decent wage. I went to work full time and he went to school full time and our son went to daycare.
Fast-forward 3 years and my husband finished school. However, I am now well-entrenched into my career. There aren’t a lot of good job prospects in Atlanta for my husband and I don’t want to move because my career is doing well. So he enters into a post-doctoral fellowship - still not a great wage though at least a wage.
At this point our son started public school.
Currently, my husband has a GREAT job in the Atlanta area, I have a GREAT job here, too. Our son is in school. We share the burden of domestic duties when the arise. We look at each other and say, “Can you take off work on this day? Which one of us took off last time?”
I consider myself LUCKY to have my life. My husband’s mother was a single mother and whenever I feel like I’m tired, or that things are rough, I just think what it must be like for HER. We have one single mom on our team. When her daughter is sick I have sympathy and extend good-will.
If single people, as well as married people, would understand that everyones lives are COMPLICATED and journeys WIND around your plans and everyone would extend their good will then everyone would be a lot happier!
Somebody slap me. I sound like Pollyanna….
By Sali
January 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Hold your head high home-makers, don’t let the liberal-dem-commies tell you you are anything less than the greatest. Another silly, silly, silly person…. This is a non-issue in the tiny mind of an idiot. And you’re probably a man who knows absolutely nothing about being a homemaker anyway.
By lozen
January 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
No Jen, you sound like a really decent human being!
By Jack
January 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
Nothing wrong with Pollyanna.
By Jen
January 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
Cue the Gingerbread Man from Shrek: Can’t we all just get along?
By GeezGuys
January 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
No.
Bah, humbug. :P
By lozen
January 14, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
No Jen I’m afraid we can’t. You see if I disagree with some of these stupid yokels on this blog about anything they are going to immediately call me a commie. Or whatever makes them feel better about their 90 I.Q They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity. And you are too smart to be on here for long! It is impossible to have a conversation with idiots.
By Dufus
January 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us!
By lozen
January 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
A few thoughts from a friend on the military action in Iraq: About a million people are dead in Iraq. Entire cities have been destroyed. There’s depleted uranium all over Iraq that will affect humanity for eternity. Would this war have happened if we were asked to actually pay for it (and not ask the Fed to print $600 billion that it has printed so far for this war). If the Fed wasn’t printing money out of thin air and giving it to our government to fund this war, then every resident (man, woman and child) would have had to pay about $500/year. Thats $2000/person since the war began. For a typical family of 4, this cost would be $8000 per family so far. (And there is no end in sight). Would we be paying for it, if we had honest money? The fact is that we are in this war, because it benefits some people. The mercenaries of BlackWater. The contractors of Halliburton But, most importantly, the Bankers at Fed who created this money out of thin air, and loaned it to the government at an interest.
By Erica Jong
January 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Who’s Tired of Pink?
I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs—which connect with their brains—in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone—a brown, black, yellow or white woman—will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future—usually wrongly—and telling women to shut up. I am so sick of hearing that another pink man has dropped his children out a window, off a bridge or killed his pregnant wife or killed his unpregnant wife because he was infatuated with another pregnant woman. I am so sick of pink men making war and talking about peace. I am so sick of pink men appointing their mediocre cronies to judgeships, to political advisors, to cushy jobs, to columns in the paper, to multimillion-dollar posts as CEOS or actors (while the actresses make less) or producers or writers or newsreaders or talk show bloviators or supposedly sage counselors at law. I am so tired of pink men.
And by the way some brown men and tan men and wheaten men do these things too.
Don’t tell me about women who kill. I know there are some—but fewer. So let’s just remember our mothers—who bore us, protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.
I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false. I know there are bad mothers, bad women, bad sisters, bad aunts, and bad females of every stripe. But I have seen enough men in high office to last a lifetime. Let’s give women a chance!
By Scalia
January 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Wow! That was sexist and racist, and I am not even a pink man.
By JokesOn
January 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.
Someone is off their medication.
By Lee
January 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
To Debora and the Rest of the inconsiderate folks out here. First and foremost, I have never asked anyone of you personal for any support for my children. I was making a simple statement of how selfish single people without children could be and your ignorant comments solidified my belief. I am a very successful and financially stable woman who does not have to ask anyone for anything other than God. I am able to balance family and my career, but it can become challenging at times. With your simple man, it’s no wonder that you are single. By the way, you would probably have a physical and mental meltdown if you had to balance your career and raise a family at the same time. I’m my own boss by the way. Are you Debra?
By Lee
January 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
Debora, I work for myself bringing in big money. You are single with no children and have a job working for someone else.
By Jack
January 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
“wheaten” men????
By Copyleft
January 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Sounds like someone’s had an Amway epiphany….
By chuck
January 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
I had a HUH? moment on that one too Jack. Looks like Whiley is back.
Hi Whiley. Did you break into the infirmary office again sweety? Listen to the people in white. They will get you back to your room.
By JokesOn
January 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
To Debora and the Rest of the inconsiderate folks out here. First and foremost, I have never asked anyone of you personal for any support for my children.
Lee, You did ask us to walk in your shoes though. If certain people chose not to have those shoes in the first place in order to keep their life un-encombered, how do you think they feel when a parent’s workload effects them?
My wife and I waited until we were in a comfortable position to have kids. Why is it absurd for us to be annoyed when other peoples lack of planning regularly effects us? To expect everyone else to make room for these parents situation sounds pretty selfish to me. It is not much different than the guy speeding down the road because he is late and expecting everyone to make room for his more important agenda.
I do not mind, and actually enjoy helping others. But when it is needed on a regular basis, it is slack.
By GeezGuys
January 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Ten to one odds…Lee is the one who pitches a fit when you tell his/her brat to stop running wild with the shopping cart in Krogers. Because it “isn’t YOUR child”.
By Newzwyre
January 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/HuckabeeAmendConstitutiontomeetGods0115.html
The United States Constitution never uses the word “God” or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from “We the People.” However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it’s time to put an end to that.
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
a vote for Huckabee = a vote against freedom
By Bruce
January 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
“I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false.”
By this statement then everything you said prior to it was false too, right?
“They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity.”
Now we know why YOU”RE still here…You’re not smart enough to leave. Which puts you in the stupid class with the rest of us. Thanks for helping us run them off.
By Ellen
January 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
As a purposefully childless woman, I resent having worked dumped on me when a team member who is a parent has to take off for parental responsibilities. Why do I have to stay late because your kid is sick or is in the second-grade play? If employers are going to accommodate parents then they need to start accommodating childless workers, too. T** for tat.
By ButClintonDidIt
January 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
to paraphrase the 4:44 post:
But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it.
By No kids at home
January 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
I do not have kids and put in 40 hours a week, am there and ready to work. Most of my team do not have kids, so we don’t have the “gotta go get the kid” thing going on. Work is work and when we are there, we are to work. If you have family, work part time or put in your fair share. Your co-workers are interested in their work and success, not your family business. I do give a big kudos to full time working moms, as a family is the most important thing. If you can do both, my hat is off to you. It’s just that the rest of us at work want to do our work and not yours or hear about you family life. People need to learn the difference between personal and professional and find the balance.
By Testosteroni
January 16, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Had two women working for me - at least ONCE A WEEK they called in at the last minute because “one of the kids may be getting sick”, they “didn’t sleep enough last night”, “forgot about parents lunch day at school”, “have to leave early to pick up rugrat”, “husband’s stepsisters kids had no place to stay today”, etc., etc., etc. When these women left my employ I replaced them with two men and have had 100% on-time attendance for almost two years. In a small business with few extra employees to pull the weight, it is a welcome relief. For this businessman - the decision to hire men over women was a no-brainer and I’ll do it again in a heartbeat.
By kiki
January 16, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Having to pick up the slack for someone at work sucks, but it’s not just the mothers. What about the coworker who is always sick? Or the smoker who is gone 15 minutes out of every hour? Or the guy who lives in the McMansion in Gainesville who is late every morning and leaves early every day? Or Chatty Cathy who spends half her day yacking in the breakroom?
By kiki
January 16, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Having to pick up the slack for someone at work sucks, but it’s not just the mothers. What about the coworker who is always sick? Or the smoker who is gone 15 minutes out of every hour? Or the guy who lives in the McMansion in Gainesville who is late every morning and leaves early every day because of traffic (gee, who knew your 60 mile roundtrip would be so awful)? Or Chatty Cathy who spends half her day yacking in the breakroom?
By lovelyliz
January 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
It’s not materal profiling that I’ve been the victim of so much as it is the paternal issues that I have problems with. Ask the singletons at your office and they will have plenty of stories where they got to hold down the fort while Mom and Dad were doing the family thing. I’ve been asked to stay late, come in early, cover for a parent, even give up holidays because well they do have a family.
I think that families can be great, but in the workforce they should not make a difference in how all employees are treated.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Families do make a difference in the work place. My wife and I always tried to divide the duties. We were both in positions that no one could take up the slack. When we were gone, the work just stopped getting done. When we got back to work there was the same amount of work to do.
I know this will probably make a lot of people mad, but this is yet another reason why it takes two people to raise a family, especially in modern society.
It is also another reason why single women should think very hard about having a baby without another person to help raise the child.
By Jack
January 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
What do you folks think of the dreaded FMLA?
By Monica
January 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
So, what’s the solution? A motherless workforce? Single parents are out of luck, I suppose. Or, just go on welfare so your former office co-workers can support you instead of cover for you occasionally.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
lozen
No Jen I’m afraid we can’t. You see if I disagree with some of these stupid yokels on this blog about anything they are going to immediately call me a commie. Or whatever makes them feel better about their 90 I.Q They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity. And you are too smart to be on here for long! It is impossible to have a conversation with idiots.
I read your whining two weeks ago about how I had ran everyone off from the forum. So I have stayed away, just reading the blog and not posting.
But you are still complaining about yokels and IQs of 90.
What would you like? You are obviously a far left progressive who has yet to post a positive post about anything or anyone.
I left, but you are still complaining. Do you want everyone that dares to disagree with you to leave? That would leave no one here.
Here’s a suggestion: instead of coming to a forum where other carbon based personalities are going to post and (dare I say it) disagree with you, perhaps you should just open up a word document, write your own topic and give your own responses. That way you would only need to deal with your extremely stellar IQ and your unapproachable education.
That will solve 90% of your problems.
Would that work for you?
By Testosteroni
January 16, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
I didn’t know we were actually looking for solutions - I just thought this was a place to b’tch about stuff and make stupid comments. Now I don’t know what to do. I don’t have any solutions, just cute little snippets of buzz words to rile people up. In other words, I thought it was like a Democratic debate.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Monica
What a great question. If a person has no family, the money they make means less to them. But the person with the family is responsible for several open mouths around the dinner table. But those are the people that are at the highest risk of being discriminated against for the reasons everyone has discussed.
Companies hire people to work a set number of hours and the company should not suffer because an employee has a family. But the family person needs the money to feed the family.
This has to be a problem in other industrialized countries. Does anyone have any idea how they handle it?
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
kiki
Smokers drive me nuts. Most of them believe that the world should stop while they feed their addiction.
The thing that kills me is when I go into any local pub that allows smoking and the vast majority of smokers are young women. And stats show that women are suffering from smoker’s ailments as much or more than men.
The saddest thing is when you pass them and get a whif of that smoker’s body oder mixed with some expensive perfume. Why bother?
$500 outfit, $200 hair style, another 3 or 4 hundred bucks worth of jewelry and make up and perfume and it is all negated because of a horrible body odor that would knock a buzzard off a sh*t wagon.
How did the tobacco companies manage that? After all the warnings and all the deaths that we have all seen in our own families, young women and men are smoking more than ever.
Is the human race just getting dumber?
By Mara
January 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
TOJ - it isn’t the differing opinions that made ME leave. I like to debate. It was the deliberate misquoting, blatant over-statements, mischaracterization of argument, the blog-name thieves, the personal attacks, and the general hatefulness that have become the rule instead of the exception.
not to mention the problems we’ve seen with spam and lame-o topics.
hey lozen.
By Bruce
January 16, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
For all you folks that are sick and tired of picking up the slack for the employees with families.
Do you realise that what you are asking for is to remove women from the work force. You know, “a woman’s place is in the home”. Shame on you, you sexist pigs…….
Most of the time when a parent has to take off for their kids they use THEIR leave for this, not yours. Do they, the parents, ever complain about how you use YOUR leave? Probably not!
Geez in this day and time be glad you have a job.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
I’m going to throw this out there and run and hide.
Didn’t Ms. Clinton write a book called “”It Takes A Village?”
Wasn’t she saying that it takes more than a loving couple to raise children, it takes the sacrifice of the entire village.
So if she is elected to be President, will she be wanting to pass laws that will obligate non-parents to take up the slack for raising a family? or is she going to pull a Tipper Gore and pretend she never wrote that book?
I’ll be hiding if anyone needs me.
By Jack
January 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Mara
It isn’t the differing opinions that made ME leave. I like to debate. It was the deliberate misquoting, blatant over-statements, mischaracterization of argument, the blog-name thieves, the personal attacks, and the general hatefulness that have become the rule instead of the exception.
I saw that the first day I visited this forum. Chuck was the only non-progressive at the time, even though I learned that there were actually several other conservatives posting here, just not that day.
All the things you mentioned were in full effect against Chuck and those canons were quickly turned on me. An example is how I dared to mention that in some ancient civilizations, religion and government were very close as the leaders were using religion to frighten their subjects into obeying laws. For this benign observation, I was called a fundie and a long list of despicable names.
The stones were always flying at the conservatives. Apparently what bothered you was the fact that I dared throw the stones back. And perish the thought, sometime my stones were bigger than the one’s thrown.
I regret that you were caught up in that and I have learned my lesson: no matter how vile I am attacked, it is unacceptable for a conservative to ever respond in kind.
I am trying my best to be “good.”
Is that OK? If that is not good enough, I need to go ahead and hit the road again. I certainly wouldn’t want to spoil the sanctity of an AJC blog.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
Jack
In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.
Actually, those are used here, but just not enough. That’s why so many children died in the Oklahoma City bombing. They were in the “on prem” daycare center.
That’s definitely a start, but our big problems came when the kids were in regular school. High school was brutal and we lived in a relatively affluent area where most families had one worker and one stay at home. Every few days, we were required to pick up the kids, take the kids somewhere, etc.
When our oldest started driving, it fixed a lot of problems.
By JokesOn
January 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.
Most of the countries I have visited have more of a lower-middle-class that act as live in nannies and 24h drivers.
So if she is elected to be President, will she be wanting to pass laws that will obligate non-parents to take up the slack for raising a family? or is she going to pull a Tipper Gore and pretend she never wrote that book?
Not to worry, I am quite certain that the notio