3 ms·

We cannot have meritocracy and a system where some people will go missing for a year at a time We don't have "meritocracy" already, so this isn't a useful obje

We cannot have meritocracy and a system where some people will go missing for a year at a time We don't have "meritocracy" already, so this isn't a useful objection. And when you consider that companies constantly complain about how difficult it is to find, hire and retain good people, you'd think once they've found one they'd want to, y'know, actually work to retain that person long-term. That would, after all, be what a meritorious company would do, and by setting that example word would get round and other good people would want to work for them. In fact, perhaps you should consider that your entire view of this is precisely the opposite way round of where it ought to be.

lsd5you 8y ago
We don't have "meritocracy" already, so this isn't a useful objection. Groan. Well it's all degrees, and for the purposes of this discussion, the reason fertile women are discriminated against is because of lost productivity, no other reason is posited (it's not sexism per se, even though that does exist to some degree in places). In fact, perhaps you should consider that your entire view of this is precisely the opposite way round of where it ought to be. You are unlikely to fully understand my view. Especially given that you are prone to uncharitable reading of things.