ChainedExistence
Posts: 507
Joined: 2/5/2005 Status: offline
|
Sometimes the type of job has more to do with who takes off than the gender of the person with the job. My ex literally had to show up to work even if he was sick, so he could hardly take a day off to care for the kids. Of course, he refused to look after the kids when they were sick and he was off, so it pretty much made it my "job" anyway, so your point is probably more true than I wish it was. Now as for taking off for pregnancy, men are now entitled to the same period of time off for a new baby, so that shouldn't be a difference anymore. In the long run, a month or two off for a baby over a lifetime career hardly means anything. quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer OK a few things absent from the women's lib sections arguments about women getting paid less. 1. Men statisticly take of far less time than women (can be attributed to kids most often but the fact remains) 2. Not many men are going to leave a job due to pregancy for several months. 3. Men do and take the jobs that historicly are the most hazardous. (thus leading to a shorter life span and more diseases directly attributable to their jobs) I'm not against women being paid as much as men assuming the work is equal, however, matching salaries for matching work needs to include the idea of total time/production. However this quote bothers the hell outta me "When jobs that women can do start paying as much as jobs women aren't physically capable of doing, maybe I'll change my mind. " To expect equal pay you have to show equal work in my mind. The idea that someone should be paid as much without regard to the value of the work to the customers goes entirely against my sense of logic.
< Message edited by ChainedExistence -- 7/29/2007 10:03:36 PM >
|