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!
    744
    44.05%
    No way!
    945
    55.95%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    Men aren't the only ones who are going to have to put the extra work because not every woman will even claim their day off. Therefore it isn't sexist at all.
    it's a legal privilege for one gender. of course it's sexist. don't be ****ing daft. just because every single women doesn't make use of it doesn't change anything.

    Also, period pains would also be equivalent to a sick day off.
    it's the same consequence. and read the thread title.

    So man up and stop trying to victimise yourself.
    I'm not victimising myself - I think this kind of law actually victimises women as well. it suggests that they're a disabled gender.

    It also wouldn't be sexist against women, because if an employer decides to not employ a woman because she has periods, that would be discrimination which is illegal.
    um, how are you going to prove that they didn't hire them on the basis of gender? you really think an employer would just ****ing admit it?
    but it makes total sense that they would because they within a company would be LOSING-MONEY. so this makes women, therefore, unemployable in reality, not in law. you're only thinking about this legally. that's hilarious. that's like saying that we can make a law that it must snow on christmas and picturing this as actually happening.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    Use BC, then you don't have to deal with that BS.
    I do. Still doesn't stop the pain completely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's a legal privilege for one gender. of course it's sexist. don't be ****ing daft. just because every single women doesn't make use of it doesn't change anything.
    It's a legal privilege because only women suffer from it. That's like saying Maternity pay and leave, which can cover a woman for up to 2 years, is a legal privilege for women. There is no logic because biologically men and women are different.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's the same consequence. and read the thread title.
    so?

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    I'm not victimising myself - I think this kind of law actually victimises women as well. it suggests that they're a disabled gender.
    You are because you're suggesting that men have to bear the full burden of this when not all women will claim it because it isn't severe for every woman.

    It doesn't suggest that theyre disabled, thats just your retarded interpretation. Women have periods which is part of a natural biological cycle, it is nothing but a disability.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    um, how are you going to prove that they didn't hire them on the basis of gender? you really think an employer would just ****ing admit it?
    but it makes total sense that they would because they within a company would be LOSING-MONEY. so this makes women, therefore, unemployable in reality, not in law. you're only thinking about this legally. that's hilarious. that's like saying that we can make a law that it must snow on christmas and picturing this as actually happening.
    Your argument is fallacious because you assume that the employer would break the law. That's hilarious.

    You're also being an apologist to discrimination. So well done there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    It's a legal privilege because only women suffer from it. That's like saying Maternity pay and leave, which can cover a woman for up to 2 years, is a legal privilege for women. There is no logic because biologically men and women are different.
    you're saying it IS a legal privilege then? but just a minute ago you said this wasn't sexist. if there is a privilege for only one gender and the two genders are equal, then that is sexist. this has nothing to do with "difference" and "equality" as being dichotomies. they can be both at once. a woman can be different to a maaan while still being "equal" in their capability. your usage of the word "different" means "differently abled" doesn't it, which is to say DISABLED. hence my point.
    if a woman is individually and legally equal, hence having the same dignity and respect, she doesn't need this law. just like ugly fat women or short men shouldn't need laws to protect them from discrimination either. because they are equal in lawful status. the only exception would be if they WEREN'T equally capable.

    so?
    ...wait, so your argument there was that a sick dayand a period day are fundamentally different things?? :lol:] mate, they are EXACTLY the same things.

    You are because you're suggesting that men have to bear the full burden of this when not all women will claim it because it isn't severe for every woman.
    I don't give a **** - NO women should be claiming this. I don't care if all or none of them actually claim it. the fact that they have it in their lawful repertoire is what I'm talking about here. if a woman is equally capable of doing a job as a man (which they as a gender are) then this law is unjustified.

    It doesn't suggest that theyre disabled, thats just your retarded interpretation. Women have periods which is part of a natural biological cycle, it is nothing but a disability.
    it is a disability if it makes them less able to work like this law is suggesting and justified.

    Your argument is fallacious because you assume that the employer would break the law. That's hilarious.
    um, for money, yeah. they would if they could get away with it. wouldn't they. and they can get away with it because you can't prove this ****

    You're also being an apologist to discrimination. So well done there.
    I'm an apologist for businesses doing what they exist for: making a profit. and if women are less likely to give it to them, OF COURSE women will be discriminated against -_- I don't want that to happen though. so I oppose the law.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    I do. Still doesn't stop the pain completely.
    I'm sorry. :hugs:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think a day off a month could easily be abused by the less conscientious workers and therefore, a Doctor's medical note is the only fair way in my opinion of implementing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you're saying it IS a legal privilege then? but just a minute ago you said this wasn't sexist. if there is a privilege for only one gender and the two genders are equal, then that is sexist. this has nothing to do with "difference" and "equality" as being dichotomies. they can be both at once. a woman can be different to a maaan while still being "equal" in their capability. your usage of the word "different" means "differently abled" doesn't it, which is to say DISABLED. hence my point.
    if a woman is individually and legally equal, hence having the same dignity and respect, she doesn't need this law. just like ugly fat women or short men shouldn't need laws to protect them from discrimination either. because they are equal in lawful status. the only exception would be if they WEREN'T equally capable.
    Dude ofc it's a legal privilege but again you must have some sort of victim complex because it isnt a legal privilege over men. It's just an acknowledgement that women suffer from problems that men don't suffer from.

    It's not equality, it's equity. Giving women an equal ground so that they're able to work and have a successful career regardless of their basic biological function to get pregnant and create life. If you're against that then you're being sexist.

    That's what im saying. Women arent equally capable when they have period pains that in some cases can be as bad as heart attacks. And im not talking about all women, im talking about the women who suffer from excessively painful period cramps.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    =

    ...wait, so your argument there was that a sick dayand a period day are fundamentally different things?? :lol:] mate, they are EXACTLY the same things.
    That's my mistake, i didnt word it properly. What I said was that I dont think we should have the same system as in Zambia and instead just integrate this into the current sick day system. It doesnt change the argument ofc.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    I don't give a **** - NO women should be claiming this. I don't care if all or none of them actually claim it. the fact that they have it in their lawful repertoire is what I'm talking about here. if a woman is equally capable of doing a job as a man (which they as a gender are) then this law is unjustified.

    So not only have you made fallacious arguments but you're enacting the dictionary definition of ignorance. Women and men aren't equally capable because period pains can affect work productivity.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7324536.html

    In the UK, a developed country, we can easily issue a system where women have to prove that they are unable to work effectively through some sort of medical approval system.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)


    it is a disability if it makes them less able to work like this law is suggesting and justified on you absolute mong
    How is it a disability if it affects all women and it affects them once a month? Also there is substantial evidence to suggest workplace productivity goes down because of this.

    A disability would mean that it is a permanent condition you blithering idiot.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    um, for money, yeah. they would if they could get away with it. wouldn't they. and they can get away with it because you can't prove this ****



    I'm an apologist for businesses doing what they exist for: making a profit. and if women are less likely to give it to them, OF COURSE women will be discriminated against -_- I don't want that to happen though. so I oppose the law.
    Do you not know how to argue? You can't assume malicious intent unless you can somehow prove that every workplace will take the opportunity to discriminate against women. So your argument is invalid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability










    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    you're saying it IS a legal privilege then? but just a minute ago you said this wasn't sexist. if there is a privilege for only one gender and the two genders are equal, then that is sexist. this has nothing to do with "difference" and "equality" as being dichotomies. they can be both at once. a woman can be different to a maaan while still being "equal" in their capability. your usage of the word "different" means "differently abled" doesn't it, which is to say DISABLED. hence my point.
    if a woman is individually and legally equal, hence having the same dignity and respect, she doesn't need this law. just like ugly fat women or short men shouldn't need laws to protect them from discrimination either. because they are equal in lawful status. the only exception would be if they WEREN'T equally capable.



    ...wait, so your argument there was that a sick dayand a period day are fundamentally different things?? :lol:] mate, they are EXACTLY the same things.



    I don't give a **** - NO women should be claiming this. I don't care if all or none of them actually claim it. the fact that they have it in their lawful repertoire is what I'm talking about here. if a woman is equally capable of doing a job as a man (which they as a gender are) then this law is unjustified.



    it is a disability if it makes them less able to work like this law is suggesting and justified on you absolute mong



    um, for money, yeah. they would if they could get away with it. wouldn't they. and they can get away with it because you can't prove this ****



    I'm an apologist for businesses doing what they exist for: making a profit. and if women are less likely to give it to them, OF COURSE women will be discriminated against -_- I don't want that to happen though. so I oppose the law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    If women have managed to go to school, college and university 30/31 days a month on their period,
    Says who? There was a time in secondary school when I was taking off 1-2 days every single month because of terrible period pain. It's gotten better now but every so often I take the day off uni if the pain is too much
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mehokay)
    Not an expert, but I'm pretty sure a woman bleeding from her genitals for a week is not equivalent to a man being tired.
    Not to mention that women also get tired :laugh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People seem to be assuming time off = less work done.

    I think it's the Danish who have a 33 hour working week and no loss of productivity.

    If you try and force people to work whilst they are lethargic/ in a lot of pain they probably aren't going to be producing great work/ perhaps less work.

    However I feel like days off are swinging from one extreme to the other... are some woman completely unable to work some days when they are on their period? Yes.

    But... I'm sure there are many other who would just benefit from some adjustments like being able to work from home on their period. Or flexihours so maybe if they need some extra rest they can come into work later, go home early and make the time up the following week.

    There are others still who have very tolerable periods and are perfectly happy keeping to the status quo.

    So in sum: potentially but not as a blanket policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    Dude ofc it's a legal privilege but again you must have some sort of victim complex because it isnt a legal privilege over men. It's just an acknowledgement that women suffer from problems that men don't suffer from.

    It's not equality, it's equity. Giving women an equal ground so that they're able to work and have a successful career regardless of their basic biological function to get pregnant and create life. If you're against that then you're being sexist.

    That's what im saying. Women arent equally capable when they have period pains that in some cases can be as bad as heart attacks. And im not talking about all women, im talking about the women who suffer from excessively painful period cramps.



    That's my mistake, i didnt word it properly. What I said was that I dont think we should have the same system as in Zambia and instead just integrate this into the current sick day system. It doesnt change the argument ofc.




    So not only have you made fallacious arguments but you're enacting the dictionary definition of ignorance. Women and men aren't equally capable because period pains can affect work productivity.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7324536.html

    In the UK, a developed country, we can easily issue a system where women have to prove that they are unable to work effectively through some sort of medical approval system.



    How is it a disability if it affects all women and it affects them once a month? Also there is substantial evidence to suggest workplace productivity goes down because of this.

    A disability would mean that it is a permanent condition you blithering idiot.



    Do you not know how to argue? You can't assume malicious intent unless you can somehow prove that every workplace will take the opportunity to discriminate against women. So your argument is invalid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
    cba to answer each and every aspect of this book you've just written for me so I'll leave you with this:
    if a woman is not as capable as a man in the work place, she is not equal, necessarily speaking. she is inferior. you have two options: equity As a SUBSTITUTE to equality, or equality as a substitute to alleged equity. you cannot have both because they logically contradict. I think women aren't less capable, so I support legal equality. if you are saying they ought to have a privilege, you are implying that they are less capable in the work place, or else why would you propose such a crutch for them to lean against? this really does sound like some very regressive **** coming straight out of your mouth. equity is necessarily sexist in its nature if it is to repair a defect, as if women are defective compared to men. if this isn't adefect, what else is it? a "difference"? a "difference in ability"? yeah, because they would, by that logic, have a LOWER ability.

    you feminists types always try to have your cake and eat it too. it just can't work. you can't argue that women and men are equal but also necessarily requiring different levels of resources - there's a difference between equality and enforcing social justice. social justice is a difference, so it is NOT an equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    cba to answer each and every aspect of this book you've just written for me so I'll leave you with this:
    if a woman is not as capable as a man in the work place, she is not equal, necessarily speaking. she is inferior. you have two options: equity As a SUBSTITUTE to equality, or equality as a substitute to alleged equity. you cannot have both because they logically contradict. I think women aren't less capable, so I support legal equality. if you are saying they ought to have a privilege, you are implying that they are less capable in the work place, or else why would you propose such a crutch for them to lean against? this really does sound like some very regressive **** coming straight out of your mouth. equity is necessarily sexist in its nature if it is to repair a defect, as if women are defective compared to men. if this isn't adefect, what else is it? a "difference"? a "difference in ability"? yeah, because they would, by that logic, have a LOWER ability.

    you feminists types always try to have your cake and eat it too. it just can't work. you can't argue that women and men are equal but also necessarily requiring different levels of resources - there's a difference between equality and enforcing social justice. social justice is a difference, so it is NOT an equality.
    They are less capable when they're in severe pain, which can in some cases be as bad as a heart attack. Equity is Equity, comparing it to equality is irrelevant because im saying that due to the nature of a woman's body and menstrual cycle, they're different to men. And in terms of productive capacity, yes, theyre not as capable IF they suffer from extreme pain. A difference in ability is what im saying, but only during their period. And that doesnt apply to all women.

    Im not a feminist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    They are less capable when they're in severe pain, which can in some cases be as bad as a heart attack.
    "in some cases" = basically not at all

    Equity is Equity, comparing it to equality is irrelevant because im saying that due to the nature of a woman's body and menstrual cycle, they're different to men.
    yeah, different, as in, differently abled. as in, less abled. i.e. disabled. so women are the inferior, disabled gender by this logic.

    And in terms of productive capacity, yes, theyre not as capable IF they suffer from extreme pain. A difference in ability is what im saying, but only during their period. And that doesnt apply to all women.
    not all women, but it COVERS all women. so it's the same thing as far as the law goes.
    no woman suffers like that from a period. if they do, then they're a massively small, significant minority who shouldn't be expecting the world to move beneath their feet just because they have an inconvenient condition that necessarily makes them less profitable than others.
    also, regarding this 1 day off work per month stuff, how is this **** even provable by the way?
    a doctor's note? what, every single time? every single month their "ordeal" strikes? what if they had a bad period one time - does that mean they can use a doctor's note forever?
    you say business people won't break the law, but would you really say women wouldn't if they have basically 1 free day of a month?

    Im not a feminist.
    you kind of are though
    look, I cba though - this is dragging on - you call yourself whatever you want
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yeah, different, as in, differently abled. as in, less abled. i.e. disabled. so women are the inferior, disabled gender by this logic.
    Are you actually an idiot or are acting stupid so that I give up? Because im not going to carry on with this until you accept the fact that you've deliberately played dumb (or are actually dumb) to try and undermine my points. You've hardly rebutted my points and it's getting frustrating now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    Are you actually an idiot or are acting stupid so that I give up? Because im not going to carry on with this until you accept the fact that you've deliberately played dumb (or are actually dumb) to try and undermine my points. You've hardly rebutted my points and it's getting frustrating now.
    mate, are you *really* wanting to prolong a useless fight with me? you look ridiculous right now. we are CLEARLY not going to agree here. and it's not because I'm "an idiot". I have made very logically established points based on a priori analytic truths, yet you never even really argued against them. you even agree that they were less capable via this law. you just tried to construct this line of reasoning as emotively negative. well I don't care. facts don't care about your precious emotions. if you think I'm being a **** for saying that a law that suggests that if a woman requires assistance then she is necessarily less able than men, I don't give a ****. because you can't even disprove that, as you've shown. you've just tried to say that this is "equitable". in what sense? the sense that it remedies what? a defect, for social justice? yeah...that's not equality. I want equality. because I believe, even despite differences, mn and women are equally capable in the world in principle. I don't care about practice - if we go down that line, we could unpack this and create a legal hierarchy of who gets what kind of assistance which is hilariously babyish. I'm not going to argue for equity for your sake. equity is patronising. I've tried to settle this argument and you just keep reining it back in. calm down - I'm not going to entertain you. you'll have to squabble with some other user now, all right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    mate, are you *really* wanting to prolong a useless fight with me? you look ridiculous right now. we are CLEARLY not going to agree here. and it's not because I'm "an idiot". I have made very logically established points based on a priori analytic truths, yet you never even really argued against them. you even agree that they were less capable via this law. you just tried to construct this line of reasoning as emotively negative. well I don't care. facts don't care about your precious emotions. if you think I'm being a **** for saying that a law that suggests that if a woman requires assistance then she is necessarily less able than men, I don't give a ****. because you can't even disprove that, as you've shown. you've just tried to say that this is "equitable". in what sense? the sense that it remedies what? a defect, for social justice? yeah...that's not equality. I want equality. you don't in that case. I'm not going to argue for equity for your sake. equity is patronising. I've tried to settle this argument and you just keep reining it back in. calm down - I'm not going to entertain you. you'll have to squabble with some other user now, all right?
    I've already exposed you for your logical fallacies in your argument but your confidence is admiring.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Sure, if they got a doctors note and inform the company before she joins up that she will be requiring these days. Then again, then we'll start having a day off every month for people feeling depressed or anxious, and while it's a nice thought, it just can't happen. They should expect lower pay though. Also, to the person talking about wage gap, it's called the earnings gap, and is to do with the fields men and women go into, not based on a man and woman with the same exp and qualifications and same job. Don't study gender studies and expect to earn the same amount as a lawyer
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    I've already exposed you for your logical fallacies in your argument but your confidence is admiring.
    what was my logical fallacy? that I'm arguing that men and women are and ought to be legally equal? so all you can say is that they're not equal to try and interpret me as being fallacious? wow. you know I don't establish that view based on a lack of recognition that men and women are PHYSICALLY different. I do accept that they are physically different. but so are men and other men, and women and other women. some men are 6'5 and muscular while some are 5'5 and skinny. it's the same with men an women - they are pppurely individuals with different abilities. it's just simply not something the government ought to be intervening over, because private companies ought to have the right to freely associate and contract with whoever they want to for their very rational goal of making the highest profit they can without harming (or damaging the property of) others. if women can't generally make businesses as high a profit as men vis-a-vis their periods, then a law that legally mandates that their periods can let them off work (with payments) means that necessarily they will be less hirable when businesses will have to pay them to NOT work on certain occasions whereas men don't have that problem for businesses. it's the same when you increase the minimum wage - those that are less capable find a very hard time finding a job because a minimum wage might be too high for their output for such a company, so hiring them is a risk until they get more experience. the world isn't a utopia nor should the government privilege or discriminate against people to get to utopia. we should just live with reality, not a synthetic reality whereby women are made equal in practice by being less equal in recognition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what was my logical fallacy? that I'm arguing that men and women are and ought to be legally equal? so all you can say is that they're not equal to try and interpret me as being fallacious? wow. you know I don't establish that view based on a lack of recognition that men and women are PHYSICALLY different. I do accept that they are physically different. but so are men and other men, and women and other women. some men are 6'5 and muscular while some are 5'5 and skinny. it's the same with men an women - they are pppurely individuals with different abilities. it's just simply not something the government ought to be intervening over, because private companies ought to have the right to freely associate and contract with whoever they want to for their very rational goal of making the highest profit they can without harming (or damaging the property of) others. if women can't generally make businesses as high a profit as men vis-a-vis their periods, then a law that legally mandates that their periods can let them off work (with payments) means that necessarily they will be less hirable. it's the same when you increase the minimum wage - those that are less capable find a very hard time finding a job because a minimum wage might be too high for their output for such a company, so hiring them is a risk until they get more experience. the world isn't a utopia nor should the government privilege or discriminate against people to get to utopia. we should just live with reality, not a synthetic reality whereby women are made equal in practice by being less equal in recognition.
    You ignored one of my posts and you've now gone off on a massive tangent away from the original point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorefromvegas)
    You ignored one of my posts and you've now gone off on a massive tangent away from the original point.
    what are you talking about then? weren't you telling me that I was wrong to say that men and women are equal (because you kept on insisting that they were different)? if that wasn't you main argument, then what the hell was? also, it's really not helpful to be INTENTIONALLY vague - if I'm asking "what is making you claim I'm being fallacious?" with "you're ignoring my post" - what post? the big novel you wrote? well no ****, champ. that's why I'm asking you to clarify now WITHOUT writing a book. it's like your only way of winning the argument here is to not even tell me what your argument is!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.