this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
1034 points (92.5% liked)

Political Memes

11936 readers
1986 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Check out the crabs in the bucket.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Extra time off isn't some kind of reward for having kids, it's to make having kids possible. We'll be old someday and we'll need those kids to support us. Give parents all the time off they want. Imagine the kind of guy who sees a new mom get time off work to take care of a literal shit machine and thinks "She's the one who decided to excrete a crotch goblin. I should get the same amount of time off work as she does so I can play more Elden Ring." Then imagine how that guy smells.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sevensolus@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (5 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Endmaker@ani.social 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

monkey's paw / evil genie / etc:

Wish granted. All employees - with or without children - will now be treated badly and given no flexibility

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] E_coli42@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (36 children)

No because they have different needs. Society should focus on providing people based on their needs, not how much they produce. Only a slave bases his worth on his productivity.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] m750@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] treesapx@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

That's exactly what this post is saying.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 12 points 2 months ago (6 children)

People saying that kids are important to society so we should allow parents extra flexibility, it rests on the assumption that what non parents would be doing with that flexible is less important to society. What if I'm giving blood, or helping an elderly parent, or volunteering at a homeless shelter? It's hardly the employers role to judge pass judgement on what is a worthwhile use of time.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Nickelalloy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

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

[–] excral@feddit.org 12 points 2 months ago (10 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 (10 replies)
[–] whelk@retrolemmy.com 11 points 2 months 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!

[–] jeffep@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Rule: if your company sets you up against your colleagues because you xor they have children, it's time for a strike or time to quit

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 9 points 2 months ago

I'm fine with people with dependents getting higher priority. If you have one pill, one sick person, and one healthy person, you don't give each of them half a pill for equality sake. https://welleatyouupweloveyouso.com/2023/08/14/what-does-equity-and-equality-have-to-do-with-being-spoiled/

But, also, society in general and employers in specific should strive to provide a level of flexibility to all employees where all of them find joy in their lives.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months 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.

[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Four day weekends for everyone, and three months of vacation time too.

Yes. Flexibility for everyone. Unironically, this is not a bad idea.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Classic equality/equity debate.

The long and short of it is, having children is not merely a personal benefit to the parent, it's a critical and necessary part of any functioning society. The proof is simply that you and everyone else owe your existence to your/their parents.

The burden of this task falls on the shoulders of parents. It's about as much work as a full time job.

Think of it as paying it forward for your parents and your own childhood. Maybe put aside the individualism that is rotting modern society from the inside out.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

As much as a full time job? There are 168 hours in a week. Work is only 40. For many years, not even the night is your own. You are on call 24x7. Imagine a tech office asking a team of two to cover a 24x7 oncall rotation for for not 1, but 2 major applications that could crash at anytime, and do so often one way or another. Then ask them to spend 40 hours a week on a 2nd job. The reality is that we as a society (in the US at least) do children a disservice. Each one is different. They learn differently, they feel differently, their needs are different. And we hand the controls over to two people with no experience, and hardly any sleep to make some of the most important decisions in a childs life. Parents should have more support from trained professionals. That in turn would allow them to be more effective at work. Even couple where one parents stays home with the kids needs help. Often an outside perspective can spot things the people who are there all the time miss.

[–] FunnySalt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Mostly I agree. I have no kids and won't (vasectomy), and I'm a bit on the antinatalist side. Not so far in that I think people should never have kids. But reproducing at the rate we do is unsustainable and thus unethical. So there's a bias there.

I do think maternity and paternity leave should be given. And some grace should be allowed for small things. Like having to come in a little late or leave a little early for having to pick up/drop off kids, that kind of thing. To a point. If it's causing more than a minor burden to coworkers, then that's a problem.

But getting preference in scheduling, time off, etc? I don't agree with that. I shouldn't get the short end of the stick because they have a kid.

Edit: In reading some of the other comments, I saw a common sentiment which I'll sum up as "don't blame the parent, blame the system" which I can agree with.

I also had a "chose to breed" line in my last paragraph. I softened the language there, because it's not always a choice.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] seggturkasz@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I don't think this is controversial. It's all about the ratios. And this says a lot about your work condition. I got 27 days off annually. Before my child was born I had 26. It's not a game changer... If all my childless coworkers got an extra day off I probably wouldn't even notice. So sure thay should have it, whatever. You Americans can argue about the weirdest things sometimes.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 8 points 2 months 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

Those who take the responsibility of caring for society's newest members should be given more leeway/support in many areas, not just employment. I don't have kids (yet, God willing), I'm just not unempathetic/extremely self-centered/nihilistic. We do live in a society, after all.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Simple solution: lie and say you have kids

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›