Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmafg wrote

So, what? Women shouldn't have jobs? We have and DO work through incredible pain, fevers, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloating, just to name SOME of what happens. But we have to work through it, because of people with your attitude. Tell me, if a man had a condition that made him ill at least once a month, do you think they'd even come in? Or would you not hire them as well?


alittlejolly t1_j0gr7yn wrote

I think that you read a lot into my comment and decided to take it ad absurdum. Or course women should have jobs and of course they should not have to work through painful periods. The key point for the comment was the devil is in the details. Women should have access to those sick days and government should cover the cost . If the government doesn't then the business has to make the tough choice of whether or not they want to hire someone who may cost them more money.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gshi0 wrote

If you think that I thought it was absurd, it's because it was. Women would not be hired by your standards. Ah yes, the men would love this. Just another way to keep women under control. And yes, I think businesses should pick up the cost. It should simply be a benefit.


alittlejolly t1_j0gt2c7 wrote

reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy where to take something to an absurd end which in your case was the question. "Women shouldn't have jobs?". Obviously that statement is ridiculous and is nowhere near the what I said.

I also understand that this is a hot button issue for you but you don't seem to be actually reading what I wrote. I completely think that women should have this option and my argument is that the government should pay for it otherwise it will likely result in additional discrimination against hiring women.