this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
1041 points (92.6% liked)
Political Memes
11587 readers
2112 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A society should always prioritize its weaker members. Children are among these. The flexibility given to the parents is not a gift to the parents, but to the children.
Regrettably, this focused flexibility has an unintended side effect. It makes people with children less desirable in the job market. If it is a universal right, then it has the effect of pulling those with kids into parity with the non parents.
We have a lot of things an employer has to afford to parents in Germany. The only significant discrimination is against women who might have children in the future and that's more to do with them not being able to work for a while.
This is why not only should fathers get the same amount of time off as mother's, but they should be required to take it.
From each according to there ability, To each according to there need.
People with children need more from society, as long as those people are also contributing as much as they are able, they deserve to have that need me
Why not both? I chose not to have kids because I think this world is idiotic and don't want more unnecessary suffering.
And it's your choice, which is absolutely respectable. But refusing to support your society's children because you're childless is not better that being against DEI because you're white.
When it's possible to give the same flexibility to everybody, that should be done of course, but it's not always the case.
It’s not “society’s children” they’re refusing to support, it’s their shitty employer under capitalism. If we lived in a utopian society, you’d have a point. It’s not the employee’s role to sacrifice for some other person the employer is accommodating at your expense.
Capitalism is not an excuse not to stand in solidarity within the working class. And capitalism doesn't make society disappear, in spite of what they would want us to believe.
But we're not talking about whether or not childcare would be subsidised (it should) or education and healthcare be free (they should). We're talking about whether being flexible to work from home or have flex hours should be allowed. And they should. For everyone, regardless of parental status.
Yeah, anyone who has to take care of a sick family member should get to work from home that day, whether it's a child or an elderly grandparent. That's what the same flexibility means, not getting to work from home the same amount of days as a parent tit for tat.
It's not always possible. When it is, of course it should be for everyone; but children should have their parents with them when they're sick or when school is closed. And that often means that childless workers can't be on holiday at the same time.
That's exactly what this debate was about, you're agreeing now.
The post says "flexibility".
If the ability to shift hours or wfh is provided to those with children, it should be provided to everyone.
Sure, comment op chose to not have kids, but parents also chose to have kids (or chose to not practice safe sex).
Parents chose to have kids; kids don't chose to be born. Flexibility should be given to everyone; priority should still be given to those to need it to take care of others. Because if you give a lot of flexibility to everyone, schedule conflicts will occur.
This I agree with (mostly). As an employee and an employer, this is how I treat things. I expect those without kids to plan their flexibility with a bit more foresight, as "oh shit" timing happens a lot less. But if there is conflict due to a preplanned flexibility and a parent's emergent issue with a child, the business deals with it, that's life. The. if an employee who was using flexible time can help out, all the better, but not required.
I know I'm not the norm as a business leader, and have had conflicts about that with other less accommodating leaders in the past, but that's how things should be. Flexibility is a priveledge, and a requirement, for the business and employees alike.
That's the crux of the argument, and one that I, as a father, side with the childless people.
Yes, they should get the same flexibility afforded to parents. 1000% But the problem comes in here: "When it's possible..."
Ask yourself why that's not always the case. The answer, of course, is that payroll is treated by virtually every business owner on the planet as pretty much a min/max game. Minimum wage possible for maximum productivity/profitability. It's not even just limited to having proper staffing levels...I've worked at places that would fire people for not accepting a promotion due to being in their current position for "too long" and having accumulated annual raises to the point where they made a whole few dollars more per hour then their colleagues in the same position...it wasn't even enough that they'd been there for years and were twice as productive, they needed to climb the ladder so they would be an underpaid supervisor instead of an "overpaid" worker. That's all that mattered.
The question people should be asking is why something like a single coworker being out of the office unexpectedly has such a large impact to the rest of the group. Why they're running so close to the bone so fucking always that all it takes is one or two people to get the flu and the whole fucking office is suddenly falling behind. The only reason that happens is because their employer lives in complete mortal terror each and every single day that they may be paying someone a full time wage and only getting 80% productivity in return. They would rather have all their people work at 100% all of the time, and then when someone gets sick or god forbid breeds, have the rest of their employees just work at 120% to keep up. Because that is cheaper for them then having an extra body around and the whole office working at 80% when someone isn't out. They don't care about burnout, they don't care about work/life balance. They care about getting, at a minimum, 100% output from someone working 100% of the time...or rather, they will settle for 100%, but if you made it 110%, hey, here's a pizza party a few times a year, aren't I magnanimous?!
This is just one of the many methods the ownership class uses to divide us. They tell you that so and so went out on maternity leave and there's just nothing they can do, they just need everyone else to work harder to make up for it, as if the possibility of hiring another person so that you can be down someone and still cruise along without everyone busting their ass like lunatics trying to stay afloat never existed in the first place.
Don't be mad at the people with kids. Don't be mad at the people without kids. Be mad at your employer who just refuses to have more than the barest minimum payroll at all times so that people can't even get sick without feeling fucking guilty to their teammates as if it's their fault that their boss won't build in a buffer.
You're right about the description of the work organization. And now? We're fighting to change these things but in the meantime? Class solidarity is not just words: it's accepting to make sacrifices for others who need something more than me.
And even in a perfect world where the employers would willing to hire more people, or if the firms were socially owned, things wouldn't be perfect. Some jobs are in tension: not enough candidates. Some times a big part of the workforce, no just one coworker, want to leave at the same time. Epidemics will still occur. School holidays will still be at the same periods for everyone. Even in a socialist utopia, there would be schedule conflicts (far less than today, but still).
We should in this matter like in the others apply the old principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Parents will always have more needs than childless people, because they are themselves needed, and the mode of production will not change that.
(Of course, it also applies to people having a relative suffering from a chronic or debilitating illness.)
if you’re having kids, best account for the reality of them
your lack of planning isn’t my emergency
That's the selfishness that will kill us ull.
totally not selfish to keep picking options that make others carry you, nope not at all, it’s their fault for proper planning
besides I believe in social safety nets, just not in childcare being uniquely special
The entirety of society is others carrying others.
let me quit my job, i’ll send you a bill for my expenses
Sure! That's called a universal basic income, and it is possible to achieve with taxpayer's money. We just need to want to achieve it.
And, you're pretty likely to still want (yes, want, willingly) to work even if your basic needs were met with a UBI. (I can't be bothered to actually go search for a source on this but I'm pretty sure there was a study done on this topic that indicated so.)
Helping others isn't something that is open to discussion. The only reason why humanity as a species exists today is because we are social creatures that can only exist in large quantities by helping each other. Early humans did it in the form of splitting up the group's work, some would hunt, some would gather, some would look after the children and at the end of the day all food would be shared together. Everyone would contribute and so everyone could keep living. Today we do the same (or, at least, should be doing the same, it's debatable if the current tax system is working very well.) in the form of taxes that pay for social services.
the amount of lol framing in your posts
history, game theory and evolution all have clear examples showing social =/ always helping each other and in fact some of our largest leaps as a species have been during relatively exploitive periods of human history but I’m not even adovcating against your point here
you just keep wondering off into windmills
stop trying to make this about more than it is
you don’t get accidentally knocked up, take responsibility and plan your shit out
all workers in our society should the level of free time provided such that it is a non issue
the amount of my life spent carrying others because I actually have my shit together and live like an adult while idiots set shit on fire, sometimes not even metaphorically
That’s it! I’m taking “smoke breaks” every hour for my health…
Some people dont have children, but look after grandparents, or a chronically ill or handicapped person, or they take on a lot of responsibilities in the community.
Its very rare and not normal for people not to be involved in their community.
In my experience, people taking care of a family member are given equal flexibility at work. It's not like Sandra gets to leave early cause her kid is sick, but Matt doesn't get to leave early when his wife has chemo.
Its not that way in law and social circles in many places in the world. This is why I like the use of dependant in law.
Good thing our benevolent overlords grant us such gracious “gifts” 👌🏼🍆
Gift may not be the right word, you're right; but English is not my mother tongue and I didn't find a better one.
Your phrasing was an excellent change of perspective.
No problem. Your English is fine. It’s the concept in general, regardless of what words we use.
A better word might be "privileges".
Many who don't have children are among its "weaker" members. Flexibility and being treated well should be a cornerstone of society no matter if you have kids or not, especially now when the vast majority are having a hard enough time.