WJ

Hi Brig!

I painstakingly went thru the majority of the thread and sorry to rehash an earlier statement of your's (I think somewheres around lap 3), but could you please tell me how you interpreted Christianity as an advocation for the objectification of women? I think maybe you view the OT texts as an absolute shoehorning of women's 'limited' role in society, marrage, purpose and so on but, how does being a stripper enhance that image any 'differently' (if that's your argument about how to increase one's sense of self-empowerment/esteem)?

Further, you had said something like....why not take advantage of it'... which i think only purpetuates the problem of objectification. No?

I agree with the poster who said making these kinds of choices more or less condone, support and perpetuate the belief or stereotype or fact that women are in some ways 'inferior' to men in terms of this 'sole' objectification 'method' [stripper, porn, etc.], which "ain't gunna cut it" if women want to have a chance at changing that perception. There are other ways to change this perception of 'empowerment' rather than take the 'easy' way out.

And I do think Luv's analogy to AA's is right on the money here. Uncletom-ism seems quite appropriate as aquiescience to a society's percieved value system that is intrinsically 'wrong', yet to some degree a reality or fact. So the question is methodology. If there are things about humans that cannot be changed then why not work with things that can be changed, like certain types of behaviour or activities? Beyond this ethical question, I think it is more of a philosophical/psychological question that I don't believe is germain to the thread. If the thread is about which standards of conduct will have the likelihood of such enhancement or the 'wholeness' of gender based human perceptions about themselves and each other, or the wholeness of the person regardless of the 'perceptions', then why should any society restrict or prohibit any activity that has the percieved value of self 'empowerment'?

In otherwords, who or what determines the appropriateness of which activities are more apt to improve the level of this self-empowerment that you believe women lack? If stripping is one approved method as supported by a given society, would you agree that it is not without its consequences? Which means and methods have a greater or lesser risk of negative consquences to that end?

Maybe it goes back to why you think that Christianity or 'theism' is completely detrimental in this light? I suppose in this regard I am more of a liberal than a fundy, however, I fail to see how 'objectification' is mitigated by our choices to participate in those same activities which seem in direct support of the concept itself.

All of this said by someone who enjoys and appreciates the need to experience both the 'inner' and 'outer' beauty of the human species...

Walrus

Bree

<sigh>

Most companies have "paternity" leave as well as "maternity" leave.

However, why would you need maternity leave? You're not the one being physically challanged by having an 8 pound something in your stomach!

pescifish

Sorry to jump in here without reading the rest of the thread, but relative to this question, I believe that both maternity and paternity leave is not intended for recovery from the physical event. It is to allow the parents to get some solid parenting in after bringing the newborn into their lives.

pescifish

Now that I read back a couple of pages, I think I see how the maternity leave question came up.

Bree,
Experience is worth something. And cost of living adjustments (read that as: annual raises) will crank up anyone's salary, regardless of performance. This really isn't a matter of equality or discrimination, it's just the mathematics of compounding percentages over time.

When I was (a young woman in a predominately male field) in my 20's I was project lead to several high powered software developers, some with PhDs. Did I make as much as they did? Of course not! Did I think I was being discriminated against? Of course not! Did I expect them to cut me any slack? Did I take any crap from any of them? No and no.

I was the one given the responsibility and being recognized for my talents and skills. I considered that the appropriate reward for my contributions. The company I worked for did right by me as the years went by. Now (middle aged) I do make the same or more than any of those consultants I once lead.

It sounds to me like UPS is treating you very well: a young man in your situation would not be making the same salary as the middle aged man who vacated the position, either.

I don't see that as a gender related issue.

Amen-Moses

What does this have to do with it? Why should she get paid for work she isn't doing, regardless of the reason? Or to put it another way why shouldn't a company pay her less for the work she does do to make up for the work she won't be doing during maternity leave?

Matbe a fairer system would be to pay women who don't have time off to have children a bonus?

Amen-Moses

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

pescifish

By the way, maternity leave at my company is not paid leave. The law, as I understand it, is merely to allow a certain amount of time after childbirth for a woman to stay home without having to worry that her job will disappear.

Some companies may pay for some of that time off, but where I work the men and women who take leave when their kids are born use vacation (and sick time, if there is medical reason) and don't get paid the rest of the time.

True, their benefits (medical insurance, etc.) remain intact, but their senority time does not accrue during unpaid leave.

I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of unpaid time women take off work for childbirth is much less than the amount of paid time taken by middle aged men who suffer from heart disease after years of drinking, smoking, overeating and never exercising.

brighid

The 12 week Family Leave is unpaid, unless the individual company has a policy that pays for that leave and that goes for both the mother or father of a child. You are simply guaranteed A job back, but not necessarily YOUR job. It’s also a way to protect your benefits. If you have vacation and or sick time remaining the HR department can make you take that for any portion of the 12 weeks. I was on disability leave 3 months prior to my son’s birth. I was paid a percentage of my pay for 6 weeks and I was then off for 3 months after his birth in accordance with family leave. However, a conflict did come up and I am not sure how it would be handled now (as I was the 1st woman in my company to take leave as I had my son in 1993 just after the law was instituted) but they made me come back early because of the time I had off prior to the birth. They tried to say that this was part of the Family Leave. If a woman is healthy during her pregnancy and does not suffer any ill effects (as I did) she cannot be given disability pay when recovering from the labor and delivery – even if it is a c-section. But a person (man or woman) who has a heart attack, etc. can take disability pay for the time they are out of work recovering.

Brighid

snatchbalance

Yes, however pregnancy is strictly voluntary, for the woman, under current U.S. law. Participants in a voluntary activity generaly assume some of the risk.

SB

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>