Con actually don't really like families after all

[heyjude]

The headline is inflammatory. The post is a good article.

[cookiemdough]

Putting things like welfare and abortion aside, this article seems to solely be addressing maternity leave, breastfeeding policies, and discrimination against pregnant women. I really am curious as to why the views on this are so different politically? While I get having a baby is your choice, once you get past the maternity leave aspect why are breastfeeding policies not a unity horse issue? It would seem that since it is viewed as a health issue, why would we make this something that women have to deal with on their own at their employers discretion?

[cookiemdough]

May 14, 2012 14:20:14 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

We mock and snort because there are very intelligent posters that make outrageous claims when it comes to the prolife position. We do vote for policy change and I think the movement has been somewhat successful recently, to your (general, prochoice) dismay. So forgive us if we refuse to attempt another conversation that will be promptly forgotten.

Okay but the article isnt about abortion so why can't we address the other issues?

[heyjude]

Yup. I wrote the headline. And I purposefully wrote it that way to get people in here and away from nest gossip. The article is Jezebel.

[KateAggie]

May 14, 2012 14:18:42 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Yes. Keep mocking and snorting. It does your position so many favors.

Oh, you wanted to engage in dialogue? But you sounded so definite in your statements that all conservatives really do hate families. Forgive me for not doing my best to change your mind, which is infallible.

Seriously. You don't want to debate. You want a rout. So sorry we preferred to dance around an obvious poke at an entire political party.

[Deleted]

I don't view breastfeeding as a health issue though. I view it as a choice. I know this makes me an asshat to top all motherly asshats but formula is a perfectly good, viable option. I'm not sure why anyone feels companies should spend money to fund one viable option over another.

Just as it is up to a family to decide if breastfeeding it right for them, it ought to be up to the company to decide if they want to institute policies that encourage breastfeeding.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 14:28:29 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I don't view breastfeeding as a health issue though. I view it as a choice. I know this makes me an asshat to top all motherly asshats but formula is a perfectly good, viable option. I'm not sure why anyone feels companies should spend money to fund one viable option over another.

Just as it is up to a family to decide if breastfeeding it right for them, it ought to be up to the company to decide if they want to institute policies that encourage breastfeeding.

Will you slow dance with me?

[Deleted]

Only if you buy me breakfast.

[ringstrue]

What are all these highly successful non-governmental ways the Cons propose to deal with these family issues? Why is it so right for these ways to exist and governmental ways to not?

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 14:31:09 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Only if you buy me breakfast.

That would mean cheating on DH. WHY DO YOU HATE MY FAMILY??

[teflep]

I dont think breastfeeding is in question..and is not something I see conservatives actively working against. Maternity leave does prompt a large number of financial issues and while it is necessary for bonding, it can be very detrimental to the bottom line. I know that is a big negative in the eyes of many, especially here, but it is a fact that is not easily overcome.

[KateAggie]

May 14, 2012 14:29:29 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 14:28:29 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I don't view breastfeeding as a health issue though. I view it as a choice. I know this makes me an asshat to top all motherly asshats but formula is a perfectly good, viable option. I'm not sure why anyone feels companies should spend money to fund one viable option over another.

Just as it is up to a family to decide if breastfeeding it right for them, it ought to be up to the company to decide if they want to institute policies that encourage breastfeeding.

Will you slow dance with me?

Mind if I cut in?

[druidp]

OK then, but what about the moms who plan on BF only to find for whatever reason they don't produce enough, or baby is intolerant, or any other reasons it just can't work? Their only recourse is to find replacement BM or to FF, both of which I imagine would be more expensive than their original intent to BF.

You can't plan for everything, try as you might - and I'd venture to say parenthood is one of the most variable-ridden enterprises in human history. You hope you're working for a good employer who lets you prioritize family time and needs. You hope you can BF instead of dropping money on formula. You hope you can afford to stay at home with baby instead of paying over $1K monthly to let someone else watch them.

[cookiemdough]

May 14, 2012 14:28:29 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I don't view breastfeeding as a health issue though. I view it as a choice. I know this makes me an asshat to top all motherly asshats but formula is a perfectly good, viable option. I'm not sure why anyone feels companies should spend money to fund one viable option over another.

Just as it is up to a family to decide if breastfeeding it right for them, it ought to be up to the company to decide if they want to institute policies that encourage breastfeeding.

I don't think it means you hate women, but I still don't get it. I don't view it as something that is cost prohibitive. Now of course if you go all extreme and mandate the building of "lactation chambers" as discussed in the Staples article then of course cost would come into play. but for the most part asking for access to a private room for small increments during the day is not going to bankrupt a company.

And I completely agree with you that breastfeeding should be a family decision. The converse to that in my mind is that a company shouldn't have policies that takes that decision away either.

[cookiemdough]

May 14, 2012 14:39:13 GMT -5 druidp said:

OK then, but what about the moms who plan on BF only to find for whatever reason they don't produce enough, or baby is intolerant, or any other reasons it just can't work? Their only recourse is to find replacement BM or to FF, both of which I imagine would be more expensive than their original intent to BF.

You can't plan for everything, try as you might - and I'd venture to say parenthood is one of the most variable-ridden enterprises in human history. You hope you're working for a good employer who lets you prioritize family time and needs. You hope you can BF instead of dropping money on formula. You hope you can afford to stay at home with baby instead of paying over $1K monthly to let someone else watch them.

Just because you can't predict things that may influence your ability to nurse doesn't mean it is okay for companies to take that option away. Not making reasonable accomodations essentially does that.

[heyjude]

The point is don't run on a pro family agenda and then when in office vote in a way that runs counter to healthy families. Or do it. But be prepared to respond to articles such as the above with something beyond obtuse snorts.

I guarantee you the green agenda espoused by dems would be/should be called into question when such dems vote to gut enviro laws/regs. One can't have it both ways. That's the point.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 14:34:08 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Because if they refuse to, they are making it that much harder for a woman to exercise one of her two options. The healthier one. The cheaper one (formula may not be "viable" for everyone). Just like breastfeeding isn't an option for everyone and the choice to formula feed should not be taken away, some people have decided to breastfeed and companies shouldn't be able to make things so difficult that they essentially force women into giving up on their preferred choice.

I'm sorry, my head hurts from this. Having options doesn't mean we should mandate that someone has to make those options easier for you.

There are plenty of employers who are instituting breastfeeding feeding friendly policies and I fully support them. What I don't support is forcing those policies.

I have lots of preferred choices. It's not up to my company to make those options easier. If they do, power to them. However, if they don't, it's not the government's job to favor one option over the other or make one option easier than the other.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 14:40:47 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I don't think it means you hate women, but I still don't get it. I don't view it as something that is cost prohibitive. Now of course if you go all extreme and mandate the building of "lactation chambers" as discussed in the Staples article then of course cost would come into play. but for the most part asking for access to a private room for small increments during the day is not going to bankrupt a company.

And I completely agree with you that breastfeeding should be a family decision. The converse to that in my mind is that a company shouldn't have policies that takes that decision away either.

But it doesn't take those decisions away. I guess that's what I don't understand. Yes, not providing certain accomodations makes breastfeeding more difficult. But that doesn't prohibit you from breastfeeding or pumping if it's important to you. And if it is important to you to have policies that make it easier, then you take that to the company or your boss or whomever to get the accomodations you need.

I just don't get the mandating, especially as, at the risk of going on a tangent no one likes, the mandates will always allow for exceptions for certain careers, professions, and socio-economic levels.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 14:39:13 GMT -5 druidp said:

You hope you're working for a good employer who lets you prioritize family time and needs.

I've stayed out of this thread because I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory. But the above statement makes my heart hurt.

I work for a shitty, shitty, shitty employer. I have zero intention of getting pregnant while I'm here because I am not protected by FMLA, and I have absolutely no faith that my job would be held for me while on maternity leave. I also don't think I'd ever get to see my kid. I'm looking for a new position, but it SUCKS having your fertility held hostage by asshole employers.

I'm not saying that you have to support mandatory breastfeeding rooms and paid maternity leaves to support families. But if one is going to claim to be pro-family, I think you have to support some types of actual policies or regulations that create an environment conducive to having healthy families.

Telling people just to hope their employers are good and pro-family does absolutely nothing to actually support families. And we know that without regulations, there will always be some employers with extremely anti-family positions. Thus, without any pro-family policies by the government, there will always be a segment of society working in those anti-family jobs.

[heyjude]

Actually I would really, really like a pro-family party in this country. I think that would be wonderful.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 14:54:20 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Telling people just to hope their employers are good and pro-family does absolutely nothing to actually support families. And we know that without regulations, there will always be some employers with extremely anti-family positions. Thus, without any pro-family policies by the government, there will always be a segment of society working in those anti-family jobs.

I wasn't trying to communicate that hoping for that type of employer is all you have, and I'm very sorry your current employer fails to see the value of supporting this area. And I do agree with regulations that guide employers to do so... but even that's not going to stop companies out there from being essentially shitty to their staff.

I get the uproar against the shitty companies. But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure. But call me crazy, I do have hope that the free market can and should eventually call those businesses to account and incur consequences onto them for not having a good balance of staff care/consideration in addition to their pursuit of growth and viability.

[2vermont]

So, I guess the libs/Dems are anti-military...despite supporting the troops.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:03:28 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 14:54:20 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Telling people just to hope their employers are good and pro-family does absolutely nothing to actually support families. And we know that without regulations, there will always be some employers with extremely anti-family positions. Thus, without any pro-family policies by the government, there will always be a segment of society working in those anti-family jobs.

I wasn't trying to communicate that hoping for that type of employer is all you have, and I'm very sorry your current employer fails to see the value of supporting this area. And I do agree with regulations that guide employers to do so... but even that's not going to stop companies out there from being essentially shitty to their staff.

I get the uproar against the shitty companies. But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure. But call me crazy, I do have hope that the free market can and should eventually call those businesses to account and incur consequences onto them for not having a good balance of staff care/consideration in addition to their pursuit of growth and viability.

Please explain. Just taking the issue of maternity leave, for example. Let's assume that I get pregnant, but because I can't afford to have a baby right now anyway, I place the baby for adoption. I still need some time to physically heal, right? Under the law right now, my employer does not have to hold a position for me while I recover. What would be a more effective - but not expanded - way to make sure that if I got pregnant, I would have a job to return to after giving birth?

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:10:35 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I just realized who you are. Siggies for the win.

Glad to see you.

;D

The shitty shitty shitty job and the fat cat <---- (do you see that? he's the size of a CASE OF BEER!) should be dead giveaways!

[Deleted]

Yeah, I'm out. I should have heeded my first instinct and avoided this like the plague.

Clearly I'm a discriminating asshole who hates lactating women.

[basilosaurus]

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 14, 2012 15:04:08 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So, I guess the libs/Dems are anti-military...despite supporting the troops.

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

OMG, you hate my husband and by extension me! I'm now going to post lots of gifs instead of discussing your point further.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 14, 2012 15:04:08 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So, I guess the libs/Dems are anti-military...despite supporting the troops.

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

Don't worry. Clinton's defense budget isn't 50% responsible for the ridiculous amount of deployments the average service member has under their belts nor the uptick in PTSD and suicide rates among personnel. Newp.

[2vermont]

May 14, 2012 15:12:19 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 14, 2012 15:04:08 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So, I guess the libs/Dems are anti-military...despite supporting the troops.

I am totally for a very much down sized military. I think the Clinton defense budget is pretty much the only thing from his Administration that I'd like to see re-implemented (well, and the income tax rates). That would decrease defense spending by 14%. If that makes me anti-military, I'm cool with that.

But I guess my point is that I can see how someone can not want to fund something (or in this case quite as much) and still support it. I wouldn't call you "anti-military".

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 15:08:42 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Please explain. Just taking the issue of maternity leave, for example. Let's assume that I get pregnant, but because I can't afford to have a baby right now anyway, I place the baby for adoption. I still need some time to physically heal, right? Under the law right now, my employer does not have to hold a position for me while I recover. What would be a more effective - but not expanded - way to make sure that if I got pregnant, I would have a job to return to after giving birth?

FMLA does not in fact cover this?

And you may flame me for asking but: why is your company responsible for your personal choices? Was any attempt made to discuss the situation with your employer and see what could be worked out?

Anecdote warning: I ask this because I found out I was pregnant exactly two days before interviewing for my current job that I really wanted. I decided to wait until I was at 12 weeks to tell my boss that in six months I'd be gone for 6 weeks. I had no FMLA accrued, and no STD, so it was going to suck no matter what. Thankfully, she agreed to hold my job for me AND in conjunction I worked my ass off up until I left (which also happened to be two weeks early since I had to be put on bed rest). But no, she was not required to hold my job for me - and if she had changed her mind, I'd have had to find a job elsewhere.
Call me crazy, but I don't see why any of that was the responsibility of her or the company.

[chichimi]

May 14, 2012 15:08:42 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

May 14, 2012 15:03:28 GMT -5 druidp said:

I wasn't trying to communicate that hoping for that type of employer is all you have, and I'm very sorry your current employer fails to see the value of supporting this area. And I do agree with regulations that guide employers to do so... but even that's not going to stop companies out there from being essentially shitty to their staff.

I get the uproar against the shitty companies. But I still don't support more or expanded regulation on those companies to force them into policy implementation. More effective regulation? Sure. But call me crazy, I do have hope that the free market can and should eventually call those businesses to account and incur consequences onto them for not having a good balance of staff care/consideration in addition to their pursuit of growth and viability.

Please explain. Just taking the issue of maternity leave, for example. Let's assume that I get pregnant, but because I can't afford to have a baby right now anyway, I place the baby for adoption. I still need some time to physically heal, right? Under the law right now, my employer does not have to hold a position for me while I recover. What would be a more effective - but not expanded - way to make sure that if I got pregnant, I would have a job to return to after giving birth?

Your employer not being bound by FMLA would mean that they could let go any employee, its not an anti-family practice meant to target pregnant women. In some small businesses, if they lost an employee for 12 weeks, it could do irreparable damage. I think having that job is better than burdening small employers with so many regs that they cant hire at all or they choose to only hire healthy males. The more regs you stack on maternal benefits, the more companies will discriminate in hiring, promoting, and employing them after issues.