Gut reaction to candidates

PinkFridge

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 6:12 am

daagahminayin wrote:

I have a theory that people's visceral reactions to candidates are based on their relationship to their parents. Someone who had an abusive father will be more disgusted with Trump and someone with a cold, distant mother will hate Hillary.

I may have to take care of something before finishing this thread. However, I would like to nominate this as post of the century. Disclaimer: This doesn't resonate with me. But it's still delightful.
Though you only have two categories here, abusive father, cold and distant mother. What about cold, distant father, and abusive mother? What about no dysfunction? Please, please elaborate!

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 6:41 am

Oddly enough, given all my posts on the topic, I don't think it matters all that much who wins -- at least in terms of governance. For better and worse, the giant mechanisms of U.S. governance continue to turn. Even executive branch powers, such as SCOTUS appointments, often lead to unexpected outcomes. Some of the most historic SCOTUS decisions were rendered by justices who'd been picked to maintain the status quo. It's hard to corral cats and lawyers.

So why am I so vehemently against Clinton and the Democratic Party?

I don't hold Democrats exclusively responsible for regressive liberalism, but I'm tired of the excuses they make for it and their limitless tolerance for its architects. I believe they are enablers for ideologies that undermine freedom and opportunity. Though I was insulated by my family to some degree, I grew up in an unbridled atmosphere of regressive liberalism, and I've seen just how damaging it is to individuals and communities.

People who don't see the danger are generally kind-hearted people who associate being "liberal" with being open-minded, fair, and in favor of equality. They've never experienced first-hand the violence the left often engages in nor witnessed its intimidation tactics. They've never been personally caught in the crossfire of an ideology where the ends always justify the means.

Douglas Murray, the British journalist, said that, "There's a supply and demand problem with bigotry." I would extend that to a number of social issues.

Progressive thinkers and actors, whatever their party affiliation, have done much good in America. They've halted labor abuses; campaigned for civil rights; and worked to ensure equality of opportunity.

But having achieved some victories, they've gotten lazy, becoming obsessed with microaggressions and cultural appropriation. They are rolling back the gains of equity feminism and attempting to undermine the rule of law.

Do I think that a Trump presidency will put an end to this? Of course not. But I've seen what happens when contemporary leftists are allowed unchecked power, and I'd far rather take my chances with Trump and his allies.

youngishbear

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 7:21 am

ohmygosh wrote:

Yes. Maternity leave is about physical recovery. Taxpayers do not have to pay you to bond with your baby. Most mothers out there seem to accomplish this just fine.

No. Maternity leave is about supporting families.

I have personally experienced the prejudice against "walking utereses" and I'd appreciate if having and raising kids was seen as a family issue, not a women's issue, thank you very much.

On a practical level, don't you need your husband's presence during labor, delivery, and the day after? Doesn't he need to be there almost as much as you do?

Countless threads on this forum discuss how exhausted women sleep in a different room with their babies because their husbands need to sleep because of work. Wouldn't families function better if both parents were able to care for the new baby?

Is it possible that on this issue it's liberals who support "family values"?

Sadie

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 7:48 am

ohmygosh wrote:

Yes. Maternity leave is about physical recovery. Taxpayers do not have to pay you to bond with your baby. Most mothers out there seem to accomplish this just fine.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for you to physically recover? And even if you take unpaid leave, why should your boss have to pay someone to cover for you while you recover? Your boss should just be able to fire you for getting pregnant like in the good old days. And hire a more productive man.

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 7:55 am

youngishbear wrote:

This is the kind of sexism and denigration of women that I find objectionable. It masquerades as being inclusive and pro-family, but it actually undermines the respect we give to women who bear children.

I believe it's okay to single out the people who actually create human life in their wombs and then push it into the world for special treatment. I want those people singled out both in the language we use and the benefits we extend to them.

It is perfect fine to argue that people should have options for "family leave" that cover all the conceivable circumstances surrounding child care and elder care. That's fine. But women and men are not the same, and pretending that they are doesn't lead to greater equity or a better society. It leads to devaluing the contributions of both.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:07 am

Fox wrote:

I completely agree.

Downplaying the significance of childbirth is Sexism 101.

youngishbear

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:25 am

Fox wrote:

It's not about being the same. It's about discouraging bosses from viewing women as unproductive or a burden in the workplace, and it's about acknowledging that even though men don't need the medical leave for their own body they ought not be punished for being there and caring for their wives.

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 8:42 am

youngishbear wrote:

In that case, it makes even less sense. Lying to people to advance a social goal is precisely what I was describing in the earlier post.

When a woman has a baby, she is less productive at work. I suppose if she has the baby in the evening and is back at work the next day, you might argue otherwise, but even the most dedicated workers among us usually take a few days off.

We give maternity leave (or should) because (a) we realize that it's a relatively small investment in highly skilled workers similar to other short-term reductions in productivity, and (b) because women do an amazing thing that contributes to society and we want to honor them by allowing them to disengage from the work force temporarily giving them the opportunity to attend to their physical and mental health.

When we advocate for maternity leave, we are basically saying to employers, "This is going to cost you money and aggravation, but the benefit to society outweighs the cost to your business."

If you want people to "be there" for one another, then simply call it personal leave and let them use it for whatever they want.

ohmygosh

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 9:16 am

Sadie wrote:

Because there has to be a limit. The 50% of people in this country who are supporting themselves and the other 50% can't be expected to pay for everything. I think it's understood that a woman has to physically recover from childbirth. If she chooses to take more time than what's alotted, then it's unpaid. No one is saying she can't take more time, but it's unpaid. I mean, why stop at 12 weeks? How about a year? Life? We never stop bonding with our children, do we?
Stop making women out to be weak little things that need to be catered to.

If a company wants to attract more employees, it's their choice to offer more paid time, paternity leave, adoptive leave, etc. But I don't agree that it should be the law.

youngishbear

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 9:34 am

Fox wrote:

...which is why they call it family leave. Smile

The problem with the first part of your post is that we are not there yet. It's illegal to discriminate against women, and big businesses don't dare to do so on a large scale. But small business owners, and even more so heimish ones, do.

They don't care about "honoring" women, or contributing to society, and they don't need the headache of reduced productivity. They choose the male applicant, and that's that.

I can only imagine the paradigm shift that will occur when all fathers will get to be home for 6 weeks, and "loss of productivity" due to having a family will no longer be a reason to hesitate before hiring women.

Will there be unintended consequences? I'm sure. There always are, with every change. But I believe it's an experiment worth trying.

happybeingamom

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 9:46 am

ohmygosh wrote:

Not that I am voting for Hillary but the reason to support maternity leave and make it law is because it benefits the country.

The gov't doesn't want women to go back to being SAHM mothers. A one income family pays a lot less taxes then two. A single mother who can't wok will get welfare benefits. Child care givers pay taxes on their income so the gov't gets more revenue that way too.

Less children born means the next generation is smaller which leads to many economic and social issues. Less people in the labor force, less taxes brought in, less people to care for the elderly.

I for one would like to see mothers get much more maternity leave (minimum 3 months but 6 months to a year is much better)which will mean mothers are able to nurse their babies as that is the optimum way to feed them. Infants do better with individual care then in a group setting.

I am happy that women today have more economic and career opportunities but the down size is that mothers have to work a lot harder because the majority of childcare still falls on them.

I was mother who worked full time with little babies and children I then switched to being a SAHM. It was a million times better the stress reduction was significant. I remember being pregnant with my sixth child and saying to myself I don't have to worry if the baby won't take a bottle, I don't have to worry if my boss will let me pump or not (this was years ago it was not accepted and with one child my boss did not let me pump). If the baby stayed up half the night I don't have to worry that I will function at work.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:17 am

youngishbear wrote:

...which is why they call it family leave. Smile

If that would close the pay gap and end preferential treatment for males in the workplace, I'm on board.

Unfortunately, I doubt it would do the trick.

If an employer does not understand family values, he is not going to make allowances for moms when their kids are home sick, or understand why moms can't stay at work past 6 pm. How many men do you know that are at work til 8,9 pm on a regular basis? Now, how many women do you know that work those hours? Quite simply, as 1950s as this sounds, women are usually the ones rushing home to get the kids from school, give the kids supper... If an employer cannot respect that women have different family obligations than men have, but are still worth hiring because they are creative, intuitive, driven, and intelligent in a unique way that is exclusive to their gender, then..... seriously, its hopeless....

So, 12 weeks paid leave for both women and men, as per Clintons plan? I don't see the need.

Here's what my ideal plan would offer-

6 weeks paid leave for women post vaginal birth, with an additional 2 weeks unpaid, without any consequences or fallout from choosing to utilize a bonus 2 weeks

8 weeks paid leave for women post c section, with an additional 2 weeks unpaid, without any consequences or fallout from choosing to utilize a bonus 2 weeks

2 weeks paid leave for men, with an additional 2 weeks unpaid, without any consequences or fallout from choosing to utilize a bonus 2 weeks

4 weeks paid leave for primary adoptive parent, with an additional 2 weeks unpaid, without any consequences or fallout from choosing to utilize a bonus 2 weeks

So... How do we get to work on making this plan happen? Wink

Last edited by gold21 on Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:53 am; edited 2 times in total

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:24 am

youngishbear wrote:

...which is why they call it family leave. Smile

So why are we even discussing it?

And why call it "family leave"? Why not call it "personal leave" and get out of people's business?

In general, women are not routinely discriminated against when all other things are equal.

However, many women have significantly different goals for their work lives than men, and as a result, they take different types of jobs. That's not discrimination; that's choice.

Hiring women is often distinctly advantageous for small business owners. Women are more likely to want part-time work, for example. They may be happy to trade a higher salary or opportunity for advancement for the ability to take off when their kids are out of school, etc.

Again, that's not discrimination. That's choice.

The notion that women are routinely treated worse than men in the workplace is simply not true, and we do no favors to anyone by pretending it is.

gold21

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:30 am

Fox wrote:

I do think there's a pay gap and I do think the workplace favors men.

Have you read the threads on Imamother about tipping teachers vs tipping Rebbes? "Oh so the reason I tip the Rebbe more, is, uh, er, um, because they are like, more dedicated, you know? So yeah, that's why he gets a 200 dollar tip and the teacher gets 20 dollars." Lol.