I don't like Trump, but I have to give him credit on two things:
1. He aims to get rid of common core
2. He's trying to give families paid maternity leave
I don't know how it's implemented, but I think I'm some grades ahead of it because I never had to learn it. Either that or my districts never adopted it. Anyway, in my expert non-CC mind, CC makes no sense and complicates math to a ridiculous degree.
But it makes sense that it would confuse me, considering I've grown up without it.
Common core is teaching kids to understand the meaning behind why the math works. Not just 'here is how you multiply and add'. This is how kids are able to find new strategies that work for them. Common core is great when you have good teachers and politicians who know what they are talking about.
Besides that, it's the same all over the country, meaning that what kids learn in one state and in one grade is the same if they move that year to a different state. They won't be far behind or ahead.
Hey, if they understand it, good for them, because that means it's working. Since you keep responding with the exact same point I'll have to do the same:
I've looked at CC tutorials on YouTube and they don't make any fucking sense to me. I don't understand how anyone can solve anything like that but it they can and they are passing their math classes then they are doing well and that's that. How many times are we going in circles?
Multiple articles doesn't mean fake...they could've been written by more than one person...fake means obtained through false sources, not contradicting articles...
You don't have paid family leave in the US?
So do they just fire a woman when she becomes pregnant, or do they keep her in the company but not pay her at all…?
Who's gonna take care of your kid though? Sick days are cool and all since your lady parts need to heal, but your kid is not just gonna change its diapers.
@ewqua Usually a company with 50 or more people is required to give the mother 12 weeks of maternity leave. However, those 12 weeks can start the moment she has to go on bed rest (if needed), so if that happens, you get significantly less time after birth.
Take unpaid time off, have the husband help, have family help, day care etc.
You realize that, for thousands of years, families were able to successfully raise children before paid family leave existed, right?
@garlog Not all mothers are in good enough circumstances to take unpaid leave. Sometimes the father leaves. Sometimes the baby is an accident and the couple isn't financially ready. Not everyone has a loving family or members that are close by.
I know the logical answer is to not have a baby when you're not prepared or in a good situation, but shit happens. You can't prevent that.
^ Yeah exactly, women being introduced into the workplace in a position equal to men is a VERY recent thing. And businesses are not helping by making you choose between children and work. It's partly the reason why so many people are having children so late, because first they have to get enough money to afford one family member not working for a while plus taking care of the kid(s). But having children in your 30s is already a risk for your and their health.
@lane6
"Not all mothers are in good enough circumstances to take unpaid leave."
Then don't have children.
"Sometimes the father leaves."
A poor choice in a mate isn't anyone else's responsibility.
"Sometimes the baby is an accident and the couple isn't financially ready."
Adoption.
"Not everyone has a loving family or members that are close by."
Don't have a child if it isn't a viable option.
@silvermyth
"You realize that, for thousands of years, women's main job was ro mind the house and children?"
Worked then, works now.
@ewqua
"Yeah exactly, women being introduced into the workplace in a position equal to men is a VERY recent thing."
And whose choice was that?
"And businesses are not helping by making you choose between children and work. It's partly the reason why so many people are having children so late, because first they have to get enough money to afford one family member not working for a while plus taking care of the kid(s). But having children in your 30s is already a risk for your and their health. "
Yeah, you might have to make a choice. Why is it anyone's responsibility to let you have your cake and eat it too?
Are you seriously advocating going back to the 50s mindset and making women stay at home, since they're "so obviously complaining about being treated badly in the workplace?" What the fuck?
He's not telling women to get back into the kitchen, he's advocating for individual responsibility. Don't put words in his mouth just because you don't have a proper argument.
I couldn't have said it better myself, famousone.
Also I'm very curious as to what you're quoting, eqwua, because it seems your actually quoting something I didn't say at all. Is it from a different post I've forgotten about?
@famousone "You don't have a proper argument" and you do? I have more than enough arguments but that comment shocked me so much I responded the way I did. Lovely how you say "don't put words in his mouth" but then assume things that just aren't true about me. Not hypocritical at all.
"Worked then, works now."
That's what I was quoting. It worked back then, just nevermind human rights and all that silly stuff.
I'm all for individual responsibility. But when a company tells you "you only have enough time to give birth and heal for a bit, otherwise we'll fire you", then there is a problem. As I said, newborns can't take care of themselves. At the same time, a single breadwinner isn't enough to feed a family nowadays. So women have to choose between having a kid early while they're healthy and fertile, but risking financial problems, or having a kid late when the family's stockpiled a bit of money, but risking possible health issues that the mother or the kid could have.
So, ultimately, unless you or your partner has landed an extremely well paying job, you're faced with this choice. You can be the single most responsible person on the planet and you'll still face this conundrum. And of course, men can take care of the children too. If only the "family values" supporters didn't constantly bitch and moan about it breaking the "traditional family" or whatever bullshit they're advocating.
@ewqua
""Worked then, works now."
That's what I was quoting. It worked back then, just nevermind human rights and all that silly stuff. "
You didn't quote that at all, and you put something completely different in quotations. Don't fucking do that.
"But when a company tells you "you only have enough time to give birth and heal for a bit, otherwise we'll fire you", then there is a problem.":
Why should it be their responsibility?
"a single breadwinner isn't enough to feed a family nowadays."
Half the young families I know are either single-income households or have one full-time and one part-time job, and most of them have multiple children. The notion that it can't be done is hogwash.
Bottom line, it's no one's responsibility other than your own to ensure that you can afford to care for a child or children you have or may have. Employers shouldn't have to factor in the potential for every one of their female employees to take a paid extended leave if they decide to have children.
Many people cannot have a comfortable life without two breadwinners. That is not to say that one cannot life comfortably with only one, but people live in places swith different costs of living, different salaries, and different amounts of children.
The thing is, the companies are only looking for profit. Not an abnormal thing, a woman having a kid is not a profitable thing for the company. However, what these companies completely fail to consider is that making sure the human race continues is kinda more important than their own immediate profit. And kids = future workforce. If you tell people not to have kids, or have kids late (some of which may have genetic impairments because of being born to old people, and won't be able to work at all), you're crippling your own future workers. And of course, I have no respect for people who get kids just to get welfare. But if you and your partner have a stable, average paying job and decide to have a kid, the company should provide you with enough time and money to take care of the kid properly before you can put them to daycare. You're possibly raising their future employees, after all.
I don't think there's any real evidence that not providing paid family leave will destroy the future work force, that just seems like a pessimistic projection. Additionally, that's not really making a case for why it should be their responsibility, it's an argument as to why it would be in their best interest to do it.
Of course, what I was talking about is a hypothetical situation. It's not like the apocalypse will happen because of the lack of family leave.
Also, a couple of comments earlier you accused me of misquoting you, but I literally copied your statement and put it into quotations. I didn't misquote you at all. Might be a misunderstanding, but I just want to get it cleared up. I don't misquote people.
The quote I was talking about was "so obviously complaining about being treated badly in the workplace?". Did you not mean that as a quote of something I said?
@garlog I can see that now, my apologies.
@silvermyth Exactly, even if you have the money, you still need some time to take care of the newborn. By the way, when you tell them you need more time to take care of the kid, do they just fire you in the US or do they keep not paying you but guarantee your job position when you come back? Because if they do fire you, that's even more inconveniencing, you have to start your career all over. Sounds terrible.
1. He aims to get rid of common core
2. He's trying to give families paid maternity leave
But it makes sense that it would confuse me, considering I've grown up without it.
Besides that, it's the same all over the country, meaning that what kids learn in one state and in one grade is the same if they move that year to a different state. They won't be far behind or ahead.
I've looked at CC tutorials on YouTube and they don't make any fucking sense to me. I don't understand how anyone can solve anything like that but it they can and they are passing their math classes then they are doing well and that's that. How many times are we going in circles?
So do they just fire a woman when she becomes pregnant, or do they keep her in the company but not pay her at all…?
You realize that, for thousands of years, families were able to successfully raise children before paid family leave existed, right?
I know the logical answer is to not have a baby when you're not prepared or in a good situation, but shit happens. You can't prevent that.
"Not all mothers are in good enough circumstances to take unpaid leave."
Then don't have children.
"Sometimes the father leaves."
A poor choice in a mate isn't anyone else's responsibility.
"Sometimes the baby is an accident and the couple isn't financially ready."
Adoption.
"Not everyone has a loving family or members that are close by."
Don't have a child if it isn't a viable option.
@silvermyth
"You realize that, for thousands of years, women's main job was ro mind the house and children?"
Worked then, works now.
@ewqua
"Yeah exactly, women being introduced into the workplace in a position equal to men is a VERY recent thing."
And whose choice was that?
Yeah, you might have to make a choice. Why is it anyone's responsibility to let you have your cake and eat it too?
Also I'm very curious as to what you're quoting, eqwua, because it seems your actually quoting something I didn't say at all. Is it from a different post I've forgotten about?
"Worked then, works now."
That's what I was quoting. It worked back then, just nevermind human rights and all that silly stuff.
I'm all for individual responsibility. But when a company tells you "you only have enough time to give birth and heal for a bit, otherwise we'll fire you", then there is a problem. As I said, newborns can't take care of themselves. At the same time, a single breadwinner isn't enough to feed a family nowadays. So women have to choose between having a kid early while they're healthy and fertile, but risking financial problems, or having a kid late when the family's stockpiled a bit of money, but risking possible health issues that the mother or the kid could have.
""Worked then, works now."
That's what I was quoting. It worked back then, just nevermind human rights and all that silly stuff. "
You didn't quote that at all, and you put something completely different in quotations. Don't fucking do that.
"But when a company tells you "you only have enough time to give birth and heal for a bit, otherwise we'll fire you", then there is a problem.":
Why should it be their responsibility?
"a single breadwinner isn't enough to feed a family nowadays."
Half the young families I know are either single-income households or have one full-time and one part-time job, and most of them have multiple children. The notion that it can't be done is hogwash.
Bottom line, it's no one's responsibility other than your own to ensure that you can afford to care for a child or children you have or may have. Employers shouldn't have to factor in the potential for every one of their female employees to take a paid extended leave if they decide to have children.
Wrong. *They* must make adjustments. Again, why is it anyone else's responsibility?
Also, a couple of comments earlier you accused me of misquoting you, but I literally copied your statement and put it into quotations. I didn't misquote you at all. Might be a misunderstanding, but I just want to get it cleared up. I don't misquote people.
I'll take your word for it, but the quotation marks are very misleading.
@silvermyth Exactly, even if you have the money, you still need some time to take care of the newborn. By the way, when you tell them you need more time to take care of the kid, do they just fire you in the US or do they keep not paying you but guarantee your job position when you come back? Because if they do fire you, that's even more inconveniencing, you have to start your career all over. Sounds terrible.