Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should women get a day off work for their period? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should women get a day off work for their period?
    Yes, it's about time!
    743
    44.02%
    No way!
    945
    55.98%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And who perpetrates all this violence?
    "all" this violence? are you really generalising to that extreme?
    if more of it is via men, that's still not to imply that men don't suffer disproportionately from violence. if they were privileged, surely it would be *women* that suffered more from it and not men? in a culture where men are compelled to be more aggressive, that is surely a symptom of a society that treats men like they're meant to act like dogs to their own detriment. what "privilege".
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "all" this violence? are you really generalising to that extreme?
    if more of it is via men, that's still not to imply that men don't suffer disproportionately from violence. if they were privileged, surely it would be *women* that suffered more from it and not men? in a culture where men are compelled to be more aggressive, that is surely a symptom of a society that treats men like they're meant to act like dogs to their own detriment. what "privilege".
    No, you are the one mentioning so much violence. "This" is clearly the violence you mentioned. The answer to my question is not "men" but "to an incredibly large part it is men themselves".

    And wow, you actually have a feminist attitude now - yes, they think society needs to change to make men less violent.

    Well done!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No, you are the one mentioning so much violence. "This" is clearly the violence you mentioned. The answer to my question is not "men" but "to an incredibly large part it is men themselves".

    And wow, you actually have a feminist attitude now - yes, they think society needs to change to make men less violent.

    Well done!
    ...so you're telling me you're a "feminist"...while arguing for a legal inequality between the sexes via this law...imagine my utter *lack* of surprise at your astonishing inconsistency.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No, you are the one mentioning so much violence. "This" is clearly the violence you mentioned. The answer to my question is not "men" but "to an incredibly large part it is men themselves".

    And wow, you actually have a feminist attitude now - yes, they think society needs to change to make men less violent.

    Well done!
    I thought feminism=equality but well done for showing people it is to change men instead
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I thought feminism=equality but well done for showing people it is to change men instead
    Learn some reading comprehension. Argument was "society makes men prone to violence". Changing how society stereotypes men and makes them prone to violence is not the same as what you just wrote.

    It is always better to actually understand an argument fully before replying, else you just look like a prejudiced fool.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...so you're telling me you're a "feminist"...while arguing for a legal inequality between the sexes via this law...imagine my utter *lack* of surprise at your astonishing inconsistency.
    No, removing gender stereotypes is the aim. The thread topic is not about stereotypes. What I wrote to joe counts for you as well. Be sure you fully understand arguments before dismissing them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No, removing gender stereotypes is the aim. The thread topic is not about stereotypes. What I wrote to joe counts for you as well. Be sure you fully understand arguments before dismissing them.
    you want to remove gender stereotypes by stimulating a stereotype that women are not able to do jobs without a free day off each month...? fail.
    ...you want to remove gender stereotypes through government policy? as if this is cultural engineering from the top down? that's authoritarianism though, isn't it. the government shouldn't control our culture. our culture should control government. rule of the people and all that.

    also, how is removing stereotypes by making men and women unequal adhering to the dictionary definition of feminism?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Learn some reading comprehension. Argument was "society makes men prone to violence". Changing how society stereotypes men and makes them prone to violence is not the same as what you just wrote.

    It is always better to actually understand an argument fully before replying, else you just look like a prejudiced fool.
    You said that feminists want to change society to make men change, I suppose that is better than killing all men or putting them in camps like they occasionally call for.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you want to remove gender stereotypes by stimulating a stereotype that women are not able to do jobs without a free day off each month...? fail.
    ...you want to remove gender stereotypes through government policy? as if this is cultural engineering from the top down? that's authoritarianism though, isn't it. the government shouldn't control our culture. our culture should control government. rule of the people and all that.

    also, how is removing stereotypes by making men and women unequal adhering to the dictionary definition of feminism?
    Stimulating a stereotype? It's not a stereotype...embarrassing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Stimulating a stereotype? It's not a stereotype...embarrassing.
    you're actually saying women definitely need a day off each month...?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You said that feminists want to change society to make men change, I suppose that is better than killing all men or putting them in camps like they occasionally call for.
    They being a select few extremists?

    And yes, that is the aim, are you against that? Are you against less violence?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you're actually saying women definitely need a day off each month...?
    I would not in general, as we have sick days. However, taking sick days is seen as a bad thing in career progression so I would be for a solution that circumvents this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I would not in general, as we have sick days. However, taking sick days is seen as a bad thing in career progression so I would be for a solution that circumvents this.
    ...haven't we been through this already?
    if you give certain groups the means to do less work for the same amount of money, surely that inherently makes them, in general, less profitable to companies?
    so to give women a law like this, whereby they have an incentive to take a day off as much as possible to maximize personal utility, necessarily means that the company they work for is making less money through them compared to men? so surely the effect of this is to...hire less women?
    it's the law of unintended consequences that you're not accounting for. it's the same effect with things like minimum wages - forcing people to be demanding a higher wage means that less companies are going to want to hire them if they have not enough experience to justify that higher threshold.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...haven't we been through this already?
    if you give certain groups the means to do less work for the same amount of money, surely that inherently makes them, in general, less profitable to companies?
    so to give women a law like this, whereby they have an incentive to take a day off as much as possible to maximize personal utility, necessarily means that the company they work for is making less money through them compared to men? so surely the effect of this is to...hire less women?
    it's the law of unintended consequences that you're not accounting for. it's the same effect with things like minimum wages - forcing people to be demanding a higher wage means that less companies are going to want to hire them if they have not enough experience to justify that higher threshold.
    Then they can choose to do so. Next we might look at a person's sickness history before hiring them, no?

    And of course you would be happy for workers to be exploited in the name of "profit-maximization".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Then they can choose to do so. Next we might look at a person's sickness history before hiring them, no?

    And of course you would be happy for workers to be exploited in the name of "profit-maximization".
    The the fact remains women would be getting an extra two weeks paid leave each year compared to their male counterparts. Plus sick days. That won't bode well for female job candidates. And you joke about employers looking into candidates "sickness history," but it is something references can mention if you're taking a lot of time off work.

    And what he said concerning wages is true. It's one of the reasons minimum wage is lower for youths in the UK - to make it easier for them to find employment. Employers are reluctant to hire inexperienced burger flippers on $15 and hour, but thry might on $10 an hour. Would you rather have a low-paying job, or no job at all?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    The the fact remains women would be getting an extra two weeks paid leave each year compared to their male counterparts. Plus sick days. That won't bode well for female job candidates. And you joke about employers looking into candidates "sickness history," but it is something references can mention if you're taking a lot of time off work.

    And what he said concerning wages is true. It's one of the reasons minimum wage is lower for youths in the UK - to make it easier for them to find employment. Employers are reluctant to hire inexperienced burger flippers on $15 and hour, but thry might on $10 an hour. Would you rather have a low-paying job, or no job at all?
    Because you need years of experience to flip burgers? Lel. Next you are telling me unpaid internships aren't exploitation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Because you need years of experience to flip burgers? Lel. Next you are telling me unpaid internships aren't exploitation.
    It doesn't have to be burger flipping; it can be anything. Employers would rather not have to train and babysit their new employees, especially not on higher wages due to the inefficiency. Lower minimum wages make hiring the young and inexperienced in particular more viable.

    Internships are a good way of getting some valuable work experience and they're easier to get if the employer doesn't have to pay you. They're also contracts that are entered into voluntarily. Don't want to work for free? You don't have to. You're essentially doing volunteer work to improve your résumé.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It doesn't have to be burger flipping; it can be anything. Employers would rather not have to train and babysit their new employees, especially not on higher wages due to the inefficiency. Lower minimum wages make hiring the young and inexperienced in particular more viable.

    Internships are a good way of getting some valuable work experience and they're easier to get if the employer doesn't have to pay you. They're also contracts that are entered into voluntarily. Don't want to work for free? You don't have to. You're essentially doing volunteer work to improve your résumé.
    Yes, because there are so many people. That means the employer can say well, I am offering experience not pay. Getting work for free. That is exploitation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, because there are so many people. That means the employer can say well, I am offering experience not pay. Getting work for free. That is exploitation.
    I don't see the problem with it. Case: a person needs experience and an employer isn't looking to hire someone on a salary. You both enter an agreement voluntarily where you exchange voluntary labour for the experience. Quid pro quo. Call that 'exploitation' if you want, but it's entirely optional and makes it easier for people to get work experience.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I don't see the problem with it. Case: a person needs experience and an employer isn't looking to hire someone on a salary. You both enter an agreement voluntarily where you exchange voluntary labour for the experience. Quid pro quo. Call that 'exploitation' if you want, but it's entirely optional and makes it easier for people to get work experience.
    Yea, why would they pay a salary when they can get work done for free? "Not looking to hire someone on a salary". Lel.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.