Well, around here they don't really use them to actually avoid going to work as much as they use them to try to justify their behaviour and victimize themselves. I am a woman myself, and I absolutely hate that.

Slightly off-topic, it is a very complex and important process that I believe shouldn't be an unpleasant experience. Personally, I feel quite special during that time of the month and somehow even enjoy the change and often just have the need to be alone, but it took me a while to get there. When I would feel particularly pressured and stressed out, of course, it would be quite hard to handle, extremely exhausting. Body always shows how we feel inside. I know many women who have an excruciating time every month and they should face it like any other health issue - learn why it's there and try to fix it. Without dramatising, just taking the responsibility for your own health. To sum up, I absolutely hate the thought of it being used as an excuse, for anything.

[Edited 11/4/11 3:27am]

Female "problems"... Are you suggesting something is wrong with us? Really? A natural biological process...and something is "wrong" with us.

Perhaps some women use their time of month and the symptoms that go with it as a way to get out of obligations, but I certainly don't!

I don't look at menstruation as a "problem". Sure it can be a pain, but it's a pain that makes me stronger. I know men couldn't tolerate the pain, let alone having it every month until menopause. It humbles me because it's a reminder every month that I am capable of bringing life into the world. Sometimes pain is necessary. Suffering is necessary, for both your psychological and spiritual well-being.Not saying that if you're in debilitating pain that you shouldn't get help, but we have come to a point in our society where we run away from pain, we run away from anything that could lead to discomfort, without realizing that there could be wisdom gleaned from it.

To all my ladies out there...remember..

Being a woman is a gift...and we should look at it as such.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

Female "problems"... Are you suggesting something is wrong with us? Really? A natural biological process...and something is "wrong" with us.

I am not suggesting there is something wrong with you.

I use the term 'female problems' because that is how I've heard women describe it.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

I know men couldn't tolerate the pain

I hate this. It's sexism. Although some would say you can't be sexist toward a man.

Someone once said: They say that the worse pain anyone can go thru is giving birth so men can't understand that amount of pain. Yet men go thru greater pain and I can prove it.

The worse pain a man can suffer is being kicked in the balls. When it happens you never hear a man say "I'd like to have another one of those."

MrBartolozzi said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

I know men couldn't tolerate the pain

I hate this. It's sexism. Although some would say you can't be sexist toward a man.

Someone once said: They say that the worse pain anyone can go thru is giving birth so men can't understand that amount of pain. Yet men go thru greater pain and I can prove it.

The worse pain a man can suffer is being kicked in the balls. When it happens you never hear a man say "I'd like to have another one of those."

Thats because men cant tolerate pain...

MrBartolozzi said:

Genesia said:

MrBartolozzi said:

I hate this. It's sexism. Although some would say you can't be sexist toward a man.

Someone once said: They say that the worse pain anyone can go thru is giving birth so men can't understand that amount of pain. Yet men go thru greater pain and I can prove it.

The worse pain a man can suffer is being kicked in the balls. When it happens you never hear a man say "I'd like to have another one of those."

Do men get kicked in the balls every 10 minutes for 24 hours?

Do women have babies every 10 minutes for 24 hours?

MrBartolozzi said:

Genesia said:

MrBartolozzi said:

Do women have babies every 10 minutes for 24 hours?

What do you think labor is? Only excruciating pain every ten minutes (or less) for hours on end.

The point is you go thru all that pain and you want another baby.

Men only have to be kicked in the balls once and they never want it again.

And it was a joke told by a comedian. I put it in as a laugh I did not expect it to be taken seriously.

Tremolina said:

PurpleRighteous1 said:

Tremolina said:

That's what I am saying djj. If you gonna do it together, then do it together. if you gonna be equals, then be equals.

You make it sound like it's her fault that he hasn't done his part. As if she asked him not to. If it's socially unnacceptable then that means there is a risk that HIS boss will have more of a problem with him asking for time off for family things. It almost sounds like you're automatically putting the blame on her for either not making him do it.

Hello....

EQUALS

You are not your man's equal when you put up with that shit. Then you are simply a faker.

Tremolina said:

PurpleRighteous1 said:

Tremolina said: You make it sound like it's her fault that he hasn't done his part. As if she asked him not to. If it's socially unnacceptable then that means there is a risk that HIS boss will have more of a problem with him asking for time off for family things. It almost sounds like you're automatically putting the blame on her for either not making him do it.

Hello....

EQUALS

You are not your man's equal when you put up with that shit. Then you are simply a faker.

I'm disturbed by you lately. This seems very sexist. You're going off on all of the "abusers" in the other thread, and here you're being slightly abusive. Maybe I'm wrong.

GetAwayFromMe said:

Tremolina said:

Hello....

EQUALS

You are not your man's equal when you put up with that shit. Then you are simply a faker.

I'm disturbed by you lately. This seems very sexist. You're going off on all of the "abusers" in the other thread, and here you're being slightly abusive. Maybe I'm wrong.

So tell me then why it seems sexist to you. Because my position is the opposite in fact.

Me "going off" on abusers would look very different, I can assure you that.

What's "slightly abusive" about my posts here? Explain yourself please, when you make such accusations.

And I don't know who you are, nor why you need to bring that other thread up, but since you still do: isn't it abuse then to beat up a defenseless child?

i feel using the term 'female problems' at work is kind of medically chauvanistic. i mean i wouldn't want some male co-worker telling me, "ah i feel terrible today, it's male problems."

i'd be all so per-chance some men feel weird hearing 'female problem' issues.

maybe medical problems in my lower abdomen is enough. then whoever can think oh well that sounds legit, and i don't want to know anything else.

free2bfreeda said:

i feel using the term 'female problems' at work is kind of medically chauvanistic. i mean i wouldn't want some male co-worker telling me, "ah i feel terrible today, it's male problems."

i'd be all so per-chance some men feel weird hearing 'female problem' issues.

maybe medical problems in my lower abdomen is enough. then whoever can think oh well that sounds legit, and i don't want to know anything else.

I agree. But the issue is 'medical problems in my lower abdomen' sounds like the shits which everyone can relate to. Women who say 'Female problems' are probably using the term so the male boss doesn't ask further questions.

Tremolina said:

GetAwayFromMe said:

I'm disturbed by you lately. This seems very sexist. You're going off on all of the "abusers" in the other thread, and here you're being slightly abusive. Maybe I'm wrong.

So tell me then why it seems sexist to you. Because my position is the opposite in fact.

Me "going off" on abusers would look very different, I can assure you that.

What's "slightly abusive" about my posts here? Explain yourself please, when you make such accusations.

And I don't know who you are, nor why you need to bring that other thread up, but since you still do: isn't it abuse then to beat up a defenseless child?

You seem to be blaming a woman for having children while she's employed. Why? Women with children have rights whether you appreciate them or not and I believe that you're a lawyer of some sort, correct? Your words, to me, seem accustory and discriminative against women with children. I'm a bit offended because I have been a single mother in the past. If a coworker had an issue with my calling off sick to take care of my child, even if I were married, that's their problem. Women should not be persecuted for working to take care of their children. People get sick, it's an inevitable fact, and employers need to deal with it.

I don't believe in abuse toward anyone, be it women or children, or women with children, or whether it's physical, verbal, or emotional. I simply noted that you are quick to defend children against what you believe to be abuse, yet you are defamatory toward a woman who has children, claiming that if they "want to be equal" blah blah blah.......Want to be equal? Huh?

And about the actual topic.....

It's not the female problem that gives me problems, it is the three or four days before the event that can sometimes hamper my performance at work. This is not a made up problem or excuse, it is very real. I become exhausted, depressed, REALLY short tempered, even physically sick. Once the actual event arises, I'm fine. But I swear to God, if I ever were to be homocidal, someone needs to check the dates, because I guarantee it would fall within that time frame. No joke.

Tremolina said:

The thing I see much more used as an excuse is having kids.

Like: sorry can't come to work today, my kid is sick (so she stays home and never her husband) Or: my boy plays a part in a theater play at school and yeah it's his first time and I'm so proud of him, so no I can't be here this afternoon. I HAVE to go and see my kid.

Uhhm, maybe you have to reconsider having kids AND a job? Or at the very least share the burden of those tasks with your husband a little more, so we don't have to put up with it all the time??

My feedback on the comment about using hubby more to share the issue of sick children.

Hell no...when my kids got sick, mommy stayed home. Besides...i dont think its up to an employer to tell somebody how or who should be used to care for their children. That is out of line. My boss once suggested I use my spouse and I literally told her fuck you, next you will be trying to pick daycare for me. (yep...I really did say it and she backed up off me--and no, there were no problems afterward) I told her that in every area of my life, my kids come first and that they are the only reason I worked in her office. If she feels she can determine their care for me, she needed to hire somebody else. She said no shit like that again.

A lot of the time, leaving a sick kid home with a husband is almost the equivalent of leaving them home alone........my husband was not the nurturing injuries type and blew off anything serious so i never trusted him. Thus, if I had sick time to use, I always did just to make sure my kids were okay.

Once my son got hurt at school, and my husband was the one to pick him up[ and put a band aid on it. When I saw him, i felt that it was OBVIOUS he needed stiches. The wound was on his face, and I was pissed that my hubby has such bad judgment. Every time the kids needed medical care, he never thought it was serious (because that is how he is with himself--he shattered his wrist bones and I had to tell him a horror story before he would go for medical help).

How did my attitude develop....all I needed to see is for hubby to sit behind the wheel with the baby on top of the car in the car seat once--hubby noticed I saw him from the window---but I was like what the fuck? Why are you even capable of that.

For moms, many times everything we do, the way we do things are central to the baby, thats why I always felt the baby is safer with me. I cannot forget and leavea baby anywhere. Usually, when a baby is left accidentally in a car if its an accident, its usually the father....(I'm not talking abut these fucked up moms who go shopping or anything and KNOW they left the baby) Sexist, perhaps, but a real observation

MrBartolozzi said:

kitbradley said:

Well, I don't have "female problems" because I'm a guy. But, when I call in sick, I've just always said, "I'm not feeling well. I won't be in today". It's never been a problem for me. I choose not to reveal any illnesses because I find when I've done so in the past and I come back to the office the next day, people are asking specific questions, which means my boss has announced to everyone why I called in.

[Edited 10/31/11 11:42am]

The bosses at my work want to know details. If a woman calls and says 'female problems' no further questions are asked.

I think the worst thing one can do is tell the boss details, and then believe me, eventually you will get their "medical opinion" If you have a boss that fucking nosy, its time to find another job or even better, start your own business

MrBartolozzi said:

I completely accept that some women have serious problems once a month and do not want to dismiss people with a genuine issue.

However, I work with a lot of women and this issue comes up a lot especially when dealing with male bosses. You mention female problems to them and they run a mile.

Personally, I don't get embarrassed and start asking questions. The responses I get make me think that women use it more as a get out clause than as a genuine problem.

I think those that do are despicable. People will stop believing female problems as an issue and won't believe whose with a serious issue.

i needed to ask a question here. what is your definition of female problems?

i've searched the net and found no definitive - definition of the term. does female problems mean the medical issues only women suffer? that alone could cover a miriad of medical conditions.

currently - imo, female problems voiced as a illness is far to vague.

free2bfreeda said:

MrBartolozzi said:

I completely accept that some women have serious problems once a month and do not want to dismiss people with a genuine issue.

However, I work with a lot of women and this issue comes up a lot especially when dealing with male bosses. You mention female problems to them and they run a mile.

Personally, I don't get embarrassed and start asking questions. The responses I get make me think that women use it more as a get out clause than as a genuine problem.

I think those that do are despicable. People will stop believing female problems as an issue and won't believe whose with a serious issue.

i needed to ask a question here. what is your definition of female problems?

i've searched the net and found no definitive - definition of the term. does female problems mean the medical issues only women suffer? that alone could cover a miriad of medical conditions.

currently - imo, female problems voiced as a illness is far to vague.

female problems = stuff that is nobody else's damn business.

Obviously some women, and men would disagree with my position. I'm okay with that. But there is no need to call it 'sexist', when it is in fact the opposite, nor to bring up a totally unrelated, different thread and play a passive aggressive defense of me 'perhabs' being 'slightly abusive' here. The point I am making here is, that there are women wanting to be 'equals', but who are still putting up with the shit of their husbands, making them not, while "employers [just] need to deal with it". That has nothing to do with the other thread, nor with 'sexism', but with true equality, as well as a bit of common sense and good employeeship in the working place. In fact therefore, the counterposition I find here, from women I get, is actually a lot more sexist than what I've put forward here.

[Edited 11/8/11 14:37pm]

Tremolina said:

Obviously some women, and men would disagree with my position. I'm okay with that. But there is no need to call it 'sexist', when it is in fact the opposite, nor to bring up another thread and play a passive agressive defense of me being 'slightly abusive' here. The point of abuse here are women wanting to be 'equals', but still putting up with the shit of their husbands, making them not. Nothing to do with the other thread, nor with 'sexism'. In fact, the counter position I find here, from women I gather, is much more sexist.

Why would women want to be equals when it is men who are trying to catch up with us?

StillGotIt said:

Tremolina said:

Obviously some women, and men would disagree with my position. I'm okay with that. But there is no need to call it 'sexist', when it is in fact the opposite, nor to bring up another thread and play a passive agressive defense of me being 'slightly abusive' here. The point of abuse here are women wanting to be 'equals', but still putting up with the shit of their husbands, making them not. Nothing to do with the other thread, nor with 'sexism'. In fact, the counter position I find here, from women I gather, is much more sexist.

Why would women want to be equals when it is men who are trying to catch up with us?

Right...

Tremolina said:

StillGotIt said:

Why would women want to be equals when it is men who are trying to catch up with us?

Right...

Tremolina said:

Obviously some women, and men would disagree with my position. I'm okay with that. But there is no need to call it 'sexist', when it is in fact the opposite, nor to bring up a totally unrelated, different thread and play a passive aggressive defense of me 'perhabs' being 'slightly abusive' here. The point I am making here is, that there are women wanting to be 'equals', but who are still putting up with the shit of their husbands, making them not, while "employers [just] need to deal with it". That has nothing to do with the other thread, nor with 'sexism', but with true equality, as well as a bit of common sense and good employeeship in the working place. In fact therefore, the counterposition I find here, from women I get, is actually a lot more sexist than what I've put forward here.

[Edited 11/8/11 14:37pm]

I assume that this is directed toward me, even though this post itself is a little passive aggressive, wouldn't you say?

You asked me why I felt the way that I did, and I gave you an explanation. You don't have to be all butthurt about it. It's not that serious. Whether you assume that we WANT to be equals is irrelevant. We are your equals. My staying home with my child if he/she is sick does not make me inferior in any way. You wrote that women who want to have children shouldn't work because they obviously can't handle having both responsibilities. THAT is what set off my sexist red flag in regards to you. You simply cannot understand a position like mine because you resent the fact that women stay home with their kids. At least that's what I'm getting out of your posts. I read all kinds of threads here even though I may not post in them. I happened to notice that you felt very strongly against abuse toward children, yet you practically vilify women for (gasp) having the nerve to employ themselves when they have kids. I'm sorry, sometimes I can be too blunt, but I really don't know any other way to be.

My two cents....

if anyone has a problem with your female problems...

then take off any protective gear... bleed EVERYWHERE you go... just LET IF FLOW ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Let the strawberries fall where they may....

then you will see HOW muthafuggen QUICK they send you home... they will BEG you to leave once they see ONE clot fall out.

No problems ever again from anyone about your female issues. r

perhaps...

Tremolina said:

TD3 said:

Just reading the post here, I would think would give you a lil' insight of the challenges that women face when it comes to children, whether they're a single parent or not. To be fair, in the U.S. it's still not socially acceptable for men to take time off for family concerns. Of course some men make a conscious/passive aggressive choice make time because, its hard work.

And there lies the problem. We can't have it all and think we can get away with it.

My position on this matter is that:

If a woman wants to work, especially full time AND take care of her kids, she takes on a LOT of responsibility. For many women that's basically too much already, but it certainly gets too much when you do NOT expect your husband/partner to do the same thing. When it's always you who needs to stay home to take care of a sick child and always you who needs to go to daycare or school for whatever. You wanna be "equal"? Then be so.

If not, fine too, then you chose family responsibilities over your job responsibilities. But then you also need to deal with the consequences of that choice and not expect everybody to just move along with whatever you personal issues then are.

" We can't have it all..... "

I've always thought that term was a loaded one; a powerplay but that's a topic for another time.

Who takes care of children in a famliy should be a conversation that's held in private, in public, and apart of public policy. To state the obvious, women carry and give birth to a child or children after nine months, men don't. That doesn't have anything to do with equality but it does speak to differences in biology. Until we respect those differences and make allowances and assist women, men, and families of all dynamics this issue will always be framed them against us or as someone trying to get over. Framing conversations along those lines in my opinion means everyone loses because societies are built upon an interconnectedness.

Whether women have expectations of their husbands / significant others not being full partners in the rearing of their children, is a matter of debate. From my experience men unwillingness to pull their fair weight when it comes to kids and home is a major grip of women, still. But those expectations are shaped by many things such as cultural, family upbringing, economics, and poltics too. Once again, the private, the public, and public policy has to come to some sort of consensus that supports the greater good. You can't have men or woman fearing economic or social retribution because they've decided to take time off from work to tend to family needs. We can't make women choose children or having a job because some think they're being ask to do more work in their absence. Is it really realistic to think most men earn enough to support a family own their own for any amount of time these days?

Lets me put it this way.

Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, Spain, and Tawian are all experiencing a birth dearth, they aren't having enough children to replace the people who are dying. Children are your future tax base, workers who'll pay civil servants, pay your pensions, pay for social, and goverment healthcare programs. So all of use whether you have children are not are dependent on these kids to support you when you get old. In most instances women in these respective countries are making choices, they've decided to work, not have any children, or have just one child. A study in Asia reported, many women are choosing to work instead of having a family because they refuse to be the primary caretakers of children/home, while men go out and do whatever.

This isn't an entirely a personal issue; I think we have to look at things a little bit more broadly.

==========

[Edited 11/8/11 23:13pm]