this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
882 points (93.4% liked)

Political Memes

11475 readers
2065 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 points 33 minutes ago

I hate to be the person thats is all like "as a parent...", however - to me having to leave early, come in late or take a day off to deal with kids being sick, appointments or just daycare/school drop off/pickup is worse.
The premise of this feels like "smokers get a break so why shouldnt we?". But realistically my work is still there, i am stressed about the thing i havent done that should/needed to be done that day, the amount of work i now have to catch up on and the extra stress of trying to get the 'non-work' things done as quickly as possible so i can be back at work to get through my workload.
And ontop of that, you likely had to cut your work time short because your kid is sick or hurt and you are also stressed about that, its not like you jump in your car and start whistling to the radio heading home early.

So yes, i think a non-parent should have just as much flexibility as a parent, but thats a conversation to have with your boss and not some guilt you try saddle on parents when they cant be at their workplace for their full X-hours per day. I would never make a coworker feel guilty because they left half an hour early a couple days per week to go like practice for their sport or hobby or something, so afford the same respect for someone who has 'child commitments' instead of your 'leisure commitments' because they arent the ones saying you cant take time off too.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago

people with children dont get flexibility in alot of jobs either. depending on which job, most jobs have an "approval system, and in advance" when you can use PTO/vacation time, and they can be nitpicky if they want to change hours or schedules. Also i notice they start 'targeting you" if even ask them to do it.

This is an argument for equality based on an individuals rights. A more robust argument for equality is Peter Singer's equal consideration of interests.

Jeremy Bentham argued that a being's capacity to suffer is what is morally relevant when considering their interests, not their capacity for reason. Equal considwration of interests - Wikipedia

For example: In a situation where an equal sum of time is given to everyone without considering the individual's interests, and those of people that rely on said person (eg, children, disabled, elderly), we would have increased neglect and less efficient systems of division of labour. Thereby negatively effecting the society as a whole and in time that individual who had an increased time allotted who doesn't necessarily have a need for it.

Its like the arguments for defunding government services, often that leads to a less safe society costing the wealthy in extra security who often are the key proponents of defunding government services.

The argument is highly related to Karl Marx's, "From each accoding to his ability, to each according to his needs." Maybe less prescriptive than Marx's argument.

[–] Frigidlollipop@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think this shows up in various ways. Watching a salaried worker come in late, stay home cause kids are sick, take off early because kids have dental appt, etc versus watching the low paid hourly worker under them go without pay to take care of all the same things because they aren't salaried, have no wfh ability, and are out of leave from using it so often sucks.

Thats not the argument though, its a 'with kids' versus 'without kids' comparison.

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Check out the crabs in the bucket.

[–] redwattlebird@thelemmy.club 28 points 6 hours ago

I think this question pits parents and others against each other, when it shouldn't. Parental leave is necessary to raise a child. But at the same time, workers in general need leave for mental health among other things.

I also think this is more of a problem for places like America where leave is really, really unfairly distributed and there's basically no worker protections. There should be plenty of medical and annual leave, as well as government support in case medical leave isn't enough to get better.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 18 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Not quite the same formulation, but I've read the argument that paternal leave should be equal to maternal leave, and that both should be mandatory, because otherwise it creates an incentive for companies to hire men rather than women who might make use of maternity leave. I can see a similar argument for all workers, so that there isn't an incentive to hire people who will never have children over those who will.

Of course, all of these scenarios presume that any companies would willingly provide any leave whatsoever, which is already a fantasy. A company will only provide as many benefits as it is forced to, and a functioning regulatory state is the only entity that could force such compliance.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

I'm not against the idea, but I'm wondering what's the trigger for non-child-havers? Or is it just the idea of a sabbatical?

On a sidenote, what's the terms on parental leave? How soon after one can you take another? If you're popping 'em out quick as can be, is it months off every 12 months?

[–] YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world 30 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I love these wholesome debates. Let's all hate on each other as we fight over scraps from the Master's table.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 7 points 8 hours ago

Yep. And that mean that everyone shall have the time and confort to rise a child. And then choose to do it or not. Fuck the bosses

[–] jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

As a parent, I am given the same exact treatment as I was at the same company before. I already was a flex worker in the sense of WFH or office is entirely up to me (except when I need to be somewhere, but the need is the key), if I take my child to a doctors appointment, I am using my sick time which is allocated to all employees equally. My insurance is arguably a "better deal" since the "family plan" cost doesn't change when you add another dependent vs if it's just you and your spouse.

I would ask what these people think when they get "extra flexibility" when they have an aging parent or sick spouse they are responsible or assisting the care of? Is that flexibility okay, simply because having a child is a choice, and having a parent is not? Then what about your spouse?

I agree with others in this thread that are suggesting these people don't really care about flexibility, they just want to take it away from the parents that use it or need it.

[–] IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 14 points 10 hours ago

And everyone should have a stable home, healthcare, good paying job, etc.

[–] Sevensolus@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Easy. Companies themselves should not care about the employees families. They have no benefit from a person having children. Governments should very much care about people having children. All benefits - if any, should be decided on the goverment level. And companies will have to adhere to the law. Firms chase their own benefits. The goverment (should) work for the benefit (and future) of all citizens.

Tight command and control systems, like you're advocating here, are hard to manage. Too many competing interests. Its the primary reason 20th Century style communism failed, and they had an honest to god good go at it. Moving away from such a tight system is a key reason why China has been so successful since Deng Xiaoping.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 31 points 13 hours ago (8 children)

ITT: people thinking that offering everybody the same flexibility means taking that flexibility from parents

smfh

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Nickelalloy@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago

This one is wildly different between Europe and the US context.

[–] whelk@retrolemmy.com 11 points 11 hours ago

As a haver of kids: Sure, why not? I'll take some smoke breaks as a non-smoker, too. I'm saying this unironically or whatever by the way, that second part isn't supposed to be a gotcha or anything. I'm also a worker in the US so I'm biased, used to workplaces that go the extra mile to try and squeeze every ounce of both productivity and humanity out of you. Give everyone all the flexibilities!

[–] excral@feddit.org 14 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

ITT: people pretending others "cheese" some unfair advantages by having kids when having kids is almost always a net negative in terms of time, money, career opportunities and so much more.

People who choose not to have kids do so for a reason, don't pretend these factors don't exist for parents. As a society we need a next generation, how would you ever retire otherwise? Because of this we should support parents, not envy them for whatever small benefits they get to slightly offset all the disadvantages and are often absolutely necessary to allow them to raise kids.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] motruck@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Highly controversial take: people without handicaps should get all the same treatment as people with handicaps.

Thoughts?

[–] Zatore@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What treatment exactly are you talking about?

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

I demand electric wheelchairs for all and high priority seating for everyone on the bus.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

I agree in principle, and do sometimes get mildly annoyed having to cover for people because they are out due to parental obligations, but overall I really don't mind or care that much. I've had to do it a number of times now and sometimes it can be very stressful but that's why I get paid. Being a parent sucks so I feel bad for them having to put up with all the bullshit, it's not like they are off having fun when they can't be at work because their kid is shitting uncontrollably with a high fever or whatever nightmare is going on. Not having kids is great, the occasional extra work or responsibilities that comes with being more reliable than coworkers with kids is the tiniest of tradeoffs for me. Maybe it helps that I like my coworkers and am happy they get to be responsible parents. Additionally, if your boss or someone higher up is out on extended parental leave it can be beneficial to your career if you fill in for them and get some time working "above your station" because your org gets forced into it. I know it was for me early in my career.

[–] m750@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Caring the reason why someone needs flex time is a bullshit thing.

[–] treesapx@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

That's exactly what this post is saying.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 49 points 16 hours ago

I have kids, worked full time as a parent for 25 years and no problem with this. Set the baseline flexibility and treatment good enough to accommodate parents. You don't need to take it from childless people to give it to parents. Not a zero sum game here.

What I do have a problem with is hostility towards parents, and hostility towards non-parents. We are all in this together, and it's not frivolous to raise the next generation, someone did that for you. Nor is it selfish to just live your own life - work should not demand our whole lives.

Now that my kids are grown, I still work at a flexible employer, and use that flexibility for doctors appointments, errands to places only open during working hours, and concerts & shows. Would I defer to someone with a child or aged parent with an emergency? Yes. Would I defer to someone with no kids whose partner was having an emergency? Yes.

[–] RAFAELRAMIREZ@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Fairness shouldn’t depend on your personal life—flexibility should be about people, not categories.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 22 points 14 hours ago (10 children)

Of course childless people have needs too and deserve workplace flexibility. This post smacks of looking into your neighbor’s bowl though. If you don’t have all the additional obligations that come with parenting, don’t claim to be the same as those who do. Whatever life concerns you also have: your own health, aging parents, mental wellness, pets, etc etc etc parents ALSO have on top of kids. So get the workplace flexibility you need without crying about what parents get. If you know, you know. And if you don’t know, you really don’t know (but your mother does).

I’m so fucking sick of being looked at like a prodigal slob for being a parent. SMfH. Here we are taking swipes at each other instead of focusing on the employers. Good job playing right into their hands. Fuck.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›