H: Whether or not that’s the case, how does that change the solid fact that if a woman who has kids works, one party suffers–employer or the kids? But since you brought it up, many families simply don’t want to make the sacrifices needed to get by on one income–giving up cable TV, expensive video games and clothes, etc. And many women simply are too selfish to stay home from the workplace. They care more about a career than kids. Sarah Palin is a great example of that. DS

“You don’t know what you’re talking about”. Now there is a clear, non-mishmoshy phrase. The only trouble is that such a phrase is usually uttered by grade-school kids, who lacking maturity, do think in absolute terms such as the statement leading the present paragraph. Maybe they’re drunk with the illegal alien Absolut vodka.

No; words like “likely” and “usually” need to be taken at face value. They mean exactly that: “likely” and “usually”, i.e most of the time, but not always. You’re not in the schoolroom now, and have to defend your “ideas” on equal terms and take responsibility for what you write. The helter-skelter associations of deconstructionism won’t work here.

Duuhh, and what is it I said? That both sides are looking for security? How does that translate into the assertion that I’m dreaming of an (sic) world where people can trust each other’s word on a handshake? Post-modernism gone amok.I was suggesting the exact opposite, i.e. that people have to take precautions in the absence of (ideal) contracts.

But I shouldn’t be surprised; this resembles the dialectical analysis by the Marxists, where everything turns into its opposite. And by deconstructing my language, and making it say what you want it to say instead of what it means at face value, you can really make it say anything you want it to say, without regard to the face-value meaning of what I was saying.

ACtually, I never said or implied I was against contracts, just stating that there are implied contracts on both sides (don’t forget about the employers in your ardor). But your whole methodology and imputation of things I never suggested shows the peril of absolute statements.

Duuhh, I said business should do what it can to minimize the risk — one excellent way of doing that is signing contracts, but I guess in your case the wish is father (or is it ‘mother’) to the thought. And if applicants are looking for security, as I suggested, isn’t a contract such a way of accomplishing this?

Truly intelligent people, scientists, good MDs, top professors, etc. are extremely wary of statements such as yours that are completely inflexible. But post-modernists have never been distinguished by their reading comprehension “skills”.

Wow! Phoebe gets slammed by Debbie. Poor thing. Much worse to be slammed by Debbie than by the employer. Making the culprit into the victim; she tossed her employer into the garbage heap, but the boss is not really the victim! Poor thing, Phoebe got slammed by D-e-b-b-i-e. so she is a terrible victim because her attack on this blog transcends everything else. What a sense of proportion.

Ummm Susan…guess what… we DO have a nation of children needing psychiatrists especially 20 somethings.

These “kids” have never been taught discipline or hard work and are totally unprepared for the real world. Their parents instead of parenting them, gave them whatever they wanted.
They are now spoiled brats and most of them moved right back home with Mommy when the economy turned bad.

We as a country are reaping what we have sown.

I’m sure women who take maternity leave to have children are aware that it is inpolitically correctly adversely affecting their careers. In fact, surely it would be all the more difficult to take time out if a person’s career had been extremely important before pregnancy.

The fact that you are displaying so much resentment is disappointing. It is a biological fact that women are the ones who give birth but when they DO give birth, it is not plausible to just quit a job to ‘do the right thing’ and be left with no income to raise said child.

Are you suggesting that all mothers who are not rich enough to live a life of luxury should live on benefits? That would be more of a strain on the economy than maternity leave pay!

As for the children, if a mother wants to return to work, she should be allowed to return to work. Are there any studies to suggest that a mother is any less productive in her role?…even if the hours ARE part time.

You say that the children will suffer, again, quite a sweeping statement to make. Work, for most people, doesnt involve 80 hour weeks and no time for family – they can fit around one another. Otherwise we would have a nation of children needing psychiatrists, seeing as both parents have commonly been working for some time now and you claim that going to work is bad for the children.

I’m pretty sure the children would appreciate their parents being able to pay for an education, put clothes on their back and provide a nice home. A parent can still provide love and attention and also be a strong, hard working role model to their children, again, another positive side.

You seem to have got your teeth into a non-issue. Female employees and childbirth are a fact and just a current strain on women and their partners.

For one thing, an at-will contract would not even be an issue. Louis Vuitton is a French Company, and “at-will” contracts are not even permitted in that country unless you work on a temporary or part-time basis. Also, even if she were not in France, Phoebe Philo was not some middle or front line manager, but a top designer who would have insisted upon an employment contract in any event. Phoebe took advantaqe of her gender to bail out of her obligation. Do you see any men out there using the “family focus” card to dump a job they no longer want?

Also, to some of the people here who think it is alright to screw over an employer, I would remind them of one thing. If you show no consideration or loyalty to an employer, why should they treat you any differently? You get what you deserve if that is your attitude.

This was not an unanticipated absence, as you can see from this quote. Also, if the employer tried to anticipate this absence by either reducing Phoebe’s role or paying her less, there would have been a sexual discrimination suit filed. Phoebe is in a heads I win and tails you lose situation.