All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2024 - Candace Owens
36:47
OH SNAP! Woke Female Pilot EXPLODES on Me Over DEI Policies
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Happy Monday, everybody. You know, I woke up today and I just thought, I want to do crime.
I want to do bad stuff.
Kind of reminds me of that kid who went viral.
Remember, he was seven years old out of Florida, and he decided to just hijack his grandma's car and go for a little joyride.
And so a police officer saw him swerving.
And when the news cameras came and they asked him, why would you do this?
What made you think as a seven-year-old that this was appropriate?
Here's what he said. I want to do it because it's fun.
It's fun to do bad things and drive into a car.
But did you know that you could perhaps kill somebody?
Yes, but I wanted to do hood rat stuff with my friend.
So classic. So honest.
Yeah, I knew I could kill somebody, but I just wanted to do hood rat stuff with my friends.
And I would say, ladies and gentlemen, there's an argument to be made that that really has been the American foreign policy since the Vietnam War.
We're just doing hood rat stuff with our friends overseas.
Let's talk about that. Plus, later on in the show, a DEI pilot, or someone who supports DEI rather, came for me.
She's a girl boss pilot.
She's really mad at the idea that I do not think DEI piloting is going to lead to anything else other than a disaster.
And we're also going to talk about Taylor Swift, who appeared to tell the cameras to go away, please, at the game last night.
All that and more today coming up on Candace Owens.
Isolationism, that's the new ism that they're throwing around.
If you don't want to be involved in a bunch of wars overseas, now you are being accused of being an isolationist.
But I'm going to be honest, I'm okay with that word.
Really, what it means is that we're just tired of losing.
I mean, it would be totally bonkers if I said that I just wanted to fight Mike Tyson.
Can we win that? Can you win that, Candace?
Probably not. Why would we want to just keep doing things and losing?
But say I'm feeling nostalgic.
Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe I am just an isolationist and I'm not looking at the big picture.
So let's go down memory lane.
Take us back to 1965 when we were told that we must get involved in Vietnam by our then-president, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Tonight, Americans and Asians are dying for a world Where each people may choose its own path to change.
This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania.
It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Vietnam.
Man, I felt that in my soul.
Did you feel that in your soul? Did you want to cry?
Rah, rah, rah! Yes, of course!
We must just say yes to jungle warfare.
Except we lost.
Yeah. That cost us $176 billion and on top of that, 150,000 American casualties before we just called it quits and said, we can't win here.
But never fear, the military-industrial complex is here, so let's jump into 1991, the Persian Gulf War.
Give it to us, President Clinton.
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
They are joined by British forces.
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs And its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.
Yeah, speaking of poison gas, we kind of did that to the American troops.
As a result of that war, 250,000 American troops came back with Gulf War Syndrome because of sarin.
Yeah, that gas actually ended up not being good with them, and we'll never know the count of how many of them.
He came back with PTSD and various other mental illnesses.
But hey, like he said, the point was we were concerned about Middle Eastern civilians, among other things.
They don't want to live under a person, under an oppressive regime.
And that's why then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright answered the question about why we were killing so many civilian children in a very kind way, is what she had to say.
We have heard that a half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima.
And, you know, is the price worth it?
I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.
Okay, whatever. By the way, did we win?
Well, we did agree to a ceasefire, and included in that ceasefire was that we would allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power.
I don't know if you count that as a win.
The UN does say that it was virtually apocalyptic, the amount of bombs that we dropped and we kind of sent back Iraq to the Stone Age.
So maybe the military-industrial complex did count that as a win.
But moving on, because it never ends, of course, seeing as we left Saddam Hussein in power, we shouldn't be too shocked that That we announced that we were just gonna go to war with Iraq in 2003.
Here is our good President George W. Bush Jr.
telling us about why we absolutely again needed to enter Iraq.
Take a listen. My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.
I thought we were already doing that during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Apparently not. That one cost us, the Iraq War, nearly $2 trillion.
$2 trillion! That's a lot of dollars spent.
It ended up with 31,994 wounded soldiers.
It should come as no shock, obviously.
This one is obviously in recent memory because of how long it lasted, two decades.
But we also, at the same time, were still keeping up our effort in Afghanistan.
We began that in 2001, and then President Obama told us that we just had to keep doing it, and here were his reasons why.
Take a listen. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
We must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven, We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.
And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
LOL, LOL. Oh my gosh.
Reversing the Taliban's power.
That is definitely not how things ended up.
But thank you, Barack Obama, for trying to tell us that it would if we kept up the effort.
That was Barack Obama, by the way, in 2009 saying that...
And yeah, we lost.
We lost again.
And we lost a lot.
We admitted to spending $2.313 trillion on that two-decade effort.
And by the way, we obviously spent much more because we left the Taliban, who's back in power, ladies and gentlemen, with billions of dollars of American weaponry because we just, we fled.
We didn't just lose. We lost badly.
It was really embarrassing.
That's probably the call. Afghanistan, the Graveyard of empires.
Everybody goes to Afghanistan to lose, but not everybody spends $2.3 trillion to lose, plus sacrifices the lives of 2,402 United States military men.
And on top of that, wounds 20,713 American service members.
Again, we'll never know the cost of people that came back with the mental trauma, especially given the embarrassing way that we evacuated.
But we are We're not cool with embarrassing ourselves.
We are cool with just staying in these endless wars, which is why another one that's been going on, and this one just gets downright confusing, is the Syrian war.
So, who do we have here?
Oh, Obama again.
Take it away.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.
Over 100,000 people have been killed.
But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over 1,000 people.
Many of you have asked a broader question.
Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated?
And where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights.
It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists.
But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.
Oh, innocent civilians.
Kind of feels like a weird shift after listening to Madison Albright justify us killing innocent civilian children.
But don't pay attention.
You can't call people out on this.
Now we're okay with a lot of civilian death, but we weren't here in 2014 when he was justifying us beginning this Syrian war because of protests that were happening in Syria.
And what's weird about that is...
We're still in this Syrian war.
It's now been a decade.
If you are keeping count, I just thought that you should know that we have since spent $1.2 trillion of our hard-earned taxpaying dollars.
And there's no end to this. In fact, we bombed Syria last night.
We bombed Iranian bases in Syria last night.
That is not a joke. But we'll see where it ends.
I'm going to guess that this is another unwinnable one.
And before we can even decide where that's going to land, of course, we announced that we would be helping Ukraine.
Big deal. Very big deal.
We used to say Ukraine was an incredibly corrupt country because it is and it always has been,
but very quickly the mainstream media said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We absolutely must save the President Zelensky that we installed in 2014 during the Obama years, by the way.
Another color revolution, us pretending that protests were getting weird when in fact we just wanted to install people to run the country, that would listen to us.
But you can look it up in your own time, the color revolution in 2014.
Instead, let's listen to politicians who want to be the president tell us why we absolutely must care about this.
Here's Nikki Haley. This is bigger than Ukraine.
This is a war about freedom.
And it's one we have to win.
A win for Ukraine is a win for all of us.
I just love that. That woman has never met a war that she didn't like.
She really didn't. I mean, of course, because she is now on the receiving end of the military-industrial complex's funds.
She went into office and she was in debt, and now she's a multimillionaire, and she knows what to say to stay that way.
And we obviously see that there is a syndicate of influencers, of journalists that are clearly being paid to constantly...
Convince the public that losing is winning.
Now we're just being called isolationists as if it's not just an act of common sense.
I will wear that title, whatever you want to call it.
And to be clear, I'm not an isolationist.
I just want to know what the plan is, how much we are going to spend, and if it's winnable.
And since it hasn't been winnable, we clearly have not been winning anything really since Vietnam, maybe it's time to try it a different way.
I think that's how the majority of us who are watching this are thinking.
I really do. But never fear, Lindsey Graham is here, you guys.
Here is what he tweeted over the weekend.
He just loves it.
He's so thirsty. He wrote, hit Iran now.
Hit them hard. Yes.
Sounds like Nikki Haley. And right behind him was Texas Senator John Cornyn.
Target Tehran, which all of us were predicting at the end of last year, was obvious that they had already decided on this probably at the beginning of last year.
Actually, as soon as Biden went into office, they already knew that they wanted war in Ukraine.
They already knew that they wanted war with Iran because this is more or less just the continuation of the Clinton, of the Obama administration.
It is why they freaked out when Trump became president.
Because they really just have been passing the baton, convincing the American public that it's Republican versus Democrats, when, to be honest, it's just a swamp.
Like Trump said, it's a swamp of people that keep losing the accounting.
Oh, we don't know.
The Pentagon is unable to account for the trillions of dollars.
That's because it's in the pockets of the people that routinely lie to the American people and attempt to justify what we are doing overseas.
In case you aren't familiar where this phrase, military-industrial complex, came from, I want you to know that it came from Dwight Eisenhower, a president who warned us that this was happening.
We saw it happening up close, saw this syndicate being installed, and encouraged the American people to be awake to it.
Here's what he said. Take a listen.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, By the military-industrial complex, the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense And he is correct.
Power obviously has been misplaced.
Obviously, what we are watching is just an effort of propagandists to continually remove that power from the people.
They don't even go to Congress anymore to ask if we can go to war.
They just do it. We go, this happened and now we are justified in what we are doing.
We're going to drop some more bombs.
We're going to disappear taxpaying dollars again.
And we are never, ever, ever going to tell you where that money has gone.
As you struggle at the pump, as you struggle at grocery stores, as you struggle to feed your family, we're instead just going to call you names.
So you don't want to get involved.
You're not okay with any of this.
Pick any one of the names to choose from.
Obviously, you are a terrorist sympathizer.
You're a Putin puppet.
You're an isolationist.
It just must feel so good to routinely be proven wrong and to still justify that level of arrogance as you speak to the American people who have very much woken up to the bullshit.
Now here's what I'm going to say in conclusion.
Fortunately, we have a tremendously clear-minded leader to lead us through these trying times.
Here's Joe Biden speaking at a beer brewery the other night.
Take a listen. Goodness, I actually didn't get that.
Maybe it's me. Maybe I've got some water in my ear.
Could you play it again? Yeah, you heard it here first, guys.
Beer brewed here. And that's all I have to say about that.
2024 is going to be a wild ride.
You're already seeing the impacts of inflation at the gas pump and the grocery store.
The dollar is losing its buying power faster than wages can increase.
So let me ask you, how are you protecting your savings?
Consider diversifying with gold from Birch Gold Group.
For decades, gold has been the choice of investors and central banks to hedge against inflation.
Birch Gold can help you create a well-thought-out and balanced investment strategy.
They'll help you convert an existing IRA or a 401k into an IRA backed in gold without paying a single penny out of pocket.
Just text KANDICE to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit today.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied customers, Birch Gold has been the exclusive gold company of a daily wire for the past seven years.
So text CANDICE to 989898 to claim your free info kit.
That's CANDICE to 989898 and secure your savings now.
Okay, now it's time for some Topics du Jour.
I'm glad so many people are watching this show, you know, and you can really tell what
an impact we're having.
But I just am trending on Twitter for three days over really just saying common sense,
things that should be accepted as common sense, which is that none of us should want to fly
in the skies with pilots that have been installed there to fill a DEI initiative.
Quite literally.
United Airlines CEO came out and said that they just had a magic number that they wanted to hit of DEI pilots.
They want to make sure there's more women.
They want to make sure that there is more black people, which means that their efforts to employ people, which, by the way, is fundamentally racist and sexist, judging people by how they look and things of that nature, is really going to harm us as the Flyers.
Me, Charlie Kirkham, come out and said, that makes us nervous to fly.
We're going to wonder now when we see a black person or a woman whether or not they are qualified or whether it's just the United CEO trying to hit his quota.
I personally want to live in a world that's a meritocracy.
Please, I don't care what color they are.
Just make sure they can fly this plane.
That's it. Well, these were some of the tweets.
People were outraged. Oh my gosh.
Brian O'Sullivan wrote, Candace Owens doesn't want to fly with a woman pilot.
Charlie Kirk doesn't want to fly with a black pilot.
This is the GOP of 2024.
Racist, sexist, and not even shy about saying it.
What a sad time for our country.
Yeah, me, definitely racist and sexist as a black woman.
I want to help build a society that I can't thrive in.
That's what I want to see. More bad stuff happening to women and black people.
It's just so foolish. It's ridiculous.
And of course, we're doubling down.
We're not going to apologize.
Remove these ridiculous policies.
But nothing made my soul warmer than the fact that a person who went psychotic online happened to be a female pilot.
Really, talk about proving my point about women being more emotional than men.
They were also upset when I said that men naturally gravitate.
The reason why there are so many men in the sky is because their inherent traits gravitate towards certain career fields, like female inherent traits gravitate us towards certain career fields.
There are more women that are working in positions as teachers and as nurses because we are nurturing.
There are more males that like jobs, like becoming a pilot because they gravitate towards engineering.
That is just a biological reality that's not really ever going to go away, but we can pretend it will by enforcing quotas.
Well, this pilot, she's an Australian pilot, allegedly.
Her name is Maz Jovinovic.
She's just been having an emotional female boss babe meltdown on Twitter.
Here are some of the things that she said.
She said, white male pilots literally had a 100% quota for decades.
If you weren't white and male, you needed not apply until recently.
How is that for merit?
And why are we still having this damn conversation?
Ma'am, We have removed systemic racist and sexist policies for decades, and still white males are dominating the skies.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that they are gravitating those careers.
Nobody is saying that black pilots can't fly.
I know black pilots that have flown based on merit who also are piloting the skies, but there is no question that there is more men naturally.
But she just could not stop tweeting.
She said, She also tweeted, my favorite comedy genre right now is dudes screeching, women are more emotional as a reason that they shouldn't be in combat roles and then losing their little minds when they get blocked.
One of us in this conversation is overly emotional, buddy, and it ain't this heavily pregnant chick.
Actually, I think you are a little over-emotional.
She also wrote me, there are women already doing what you say they can't do and doing it well.
Them, well then standards have been lowered.
At least they're consistent.
Here's a link to the article about female ranger school grads, BTW. I loved this because it just proved my point about women being more emotional.
I just can't imagine a male pilot having an emotional spiral over the fact that I said we should not be enforcing fundamentally racist and sexist policies, least of all when it comes to piloting this guy.
And I'll just ask the question.
I'll leave you guys in the cliffhanger. Would you want this young woman...
After she's having a breakdown, emotionally spiraling on Twitter, if there was an emergency situation on a plane, do you think that she's got her emotions under control when a 10-second clip from a podcast sent her into a multi-day Twitter spiral?
My answer is no, which is fine because she also tweeted this.
That's okay, Candace.
You'd never qualify to be on my aircraft anyway.
Girlfriends. On this, you and I agree.
I'm okay with this.
No Candace Owens allowed on her plane.
Sad, but I'm going to go ahead and double down on my theory that we should not be enforcing racist and sexist policies, because that's what they are.
Which is why it brings me pleasure to present you guys with this hilarious clip.
This comedian's name is Kayvon, and he took a stab at the hiring process of United Airlines.
Take a listen. So, what makes you qualified to be the next United Airlines pilot?
I've always had an interest in flying.
I'm just a little concerned I'm narcolepsy.
What makes you qualified? I just love flying!
I have over 10,000 hours of flight time, and I did three tours in Afghanistan.
Any history of mental illness in your family?
My uncle has Down syndrome.
Perfect. Can you get in here for an interview?
Huh? And I'm a woman, so I'd love to be a woman pilot.
Did you march for BLM? No, but I put the black square on my page.
A lot of people did that. Love it.
Of course. Hired. May I? Hired.
Fantastic. You're hired.
Hey. You're hired. So what makes you qualified?
Well, I'm black.
Black? Hired. That's it?
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
You're hired. I'm paralyzed.
Not paralyzed from having a job.
You're hired. That's it.
You're black hired. Amazing.
That's what's going on, you guys.
Fly with caution.
By the way, guys, if you'd like to follow that comedian, again, he goes by Kayvon, but his real name is Kevin Moesi.
We will include everything, all of the links in the bottom.
You can follow him on Instagram. You can follow him on YouTube.
Be sure to check him out. Alright, moving on to Celebrity Land.
There's a lot of things to be learned from Celebrity Land.
That's why I like covering celebrities, because it allows us to foster an open cultural conversation about some things.
But I do have to say two things that I would like to update.
So, Taylor Swift last night was snapped by CBS cameras, appearing to ask them to go away, please.
You know, the NFL has just made this entire season all about her.
NFL fans are obviously upset about it because these people do just want to watch some football.
And clearly, obviously, Travis Kelsey is having a tremendous season and NFL has realized we can make money off Taylor Swift.
You know, she is a way to make money.
The media is obsessed with her and it will get more people watching the game simply because they are invested in this love story.
So here is a clip of her asking them to go away, please.
And I will give you my thoughts on it. Find out live next Sunday right here on CBS and streaming on Paramount+.
I'm going to have to go ahead and say fair.
Now, listen, I will say that you're Taylor Swift.
You are arguably the most famous woman in the world next to maybe the likes of Beyonce.
And they're not going to just go away because it's not like you dated somebody private.
You could totally date a private citizen, but she tends to like to date and go after men that are equally as famous as her.
Well, I wouldn't say equally as famous as her.
But also famous. And people are, because of her music, invested in her love story because her music is all about how she falls in and out of love, right?
That's how she's been able to connect with her audiences.
So there's no way they're just going to go away, please.
But I do feel somewhat empathetic to what she's talking about because she's not asking for them to put the cameras on her.
And I am sure it's embarrassing for her.
And what I mean by that, and I'm giving you a smaller circumstance.
Obviously, I'm nowhere near as famous as Taylor Swift.
But I am married to someone who's quite private.
And we are very involved with the church.
He is particularly very involved with the Catholic Church, and he does a lot with them.
And I just know that when we go to those events, and I remember him speaking at one of these events, that because I have a profile, people will tend to come up to me and ask for pictures.
And I will say... We're good to go.
But I do sense that it annoys her as well.
And you have to remember that despite the fact that she's really famous, she does still just want to do things like a normal person.
You know what? I mean, she doesn't want to have this embarrassment this focus on her as she's
Learning about his family as she wants them to like her as they don't she doesn't want them to associate with her with
Cameras and this embarrassment and people coming up to her and being obsessed with every moment of her life
She is at the end of the day just a person and I do not think this relationship is going to work out in the
Long run. These are my early predictions She might get a baby out of it
But I do not think that they are well matched or well suited to each other for a slew of reasons
But as it is as it pertains the NFL they have been Particularly invasive and for profit. That's the worst
thing It is kind of using her because it's making them a lot of
money and that sucks Also would like to update
I was a staunch defender of Amy Roback and TJ Holmes.
You might remember them, obviously. They got fired from ABC because they were having an affair.
They've come out and said it actually was an affair.
Both of our relationships were on the spiral.
We were separated, whatever. But I did not think that ABC actually had a legitimate reason to fire them.
You know, it's really not their business.
There was no other reason to fire them.
I think they ended up just walking away with a huge check.
I just didn't get the moral policing of the relationship in that moment, especially because they were obviously carrying this on outside of the office.
But I will say that as it pertains to the embarrassment that obviously their families and their spouses had to face in light of this scandal, in the end, I think that their former spouses are going to win because these two are just not well-suited and they're super annoying now.
So what they are doing is they are hosting a podcast between themselves, and this podcast is just insufferable.
First and foremost, it's constantly them opining about how they're victims of their own circumstances, how this could happen to us.
But also they're admitting that they're both drunks and alcoholics.
TJ notoriously, she talked about how she, after the scandal broke, she rushed,
she thought he had killed himself and he had drank all of this, plus did some drugs
and because he just didn't want to have to experience anything.
But he kept up that drinking, she kept up that drinking.
Admittedly, they're trying to do this dry January challenge.
Yeah, no, that to me is alcoholism, to be saying that you drank as much as they have over 2023.
And like two alcoholics in a relationship fighting as much as they do, admittedly,
it's just not gonna be a recipe for a healthy relationship down the line.
And I also think that you can sense that toxicity in their relationship when you listen to them speak.
Here's just one clip of TJ Holmes admitting that after they recorded a podcast episode and they got upset with each other and had an argument and they don't want people to think their relationship is perfect, don't worry, we don't, We're good to go.
I was not yelling, screaming, I wasn't doing anything.
Now, we are a couple who's having a disagreement, so obviously neither one of us are having our best moments.
But my immediate concern was that.
And you and Sugarman both were like, wait, what?
I was shocked. Yeah, they're just annoying now.
And we're doing this black man being up and a white woman.
No, you guys just seem to be in a toxic relationship and people are starting to recognize that.
There's nothing that seems healthy about your relationship other than the fact that you run marathons together, which I guess is a good thing.
And it's also impressive given the amount that you both admittedly drink.
So I just want to update my opinion on them.
They're pretty annoying now.
They're just insufferable.
All right, guys. Now let's get into your comments pertaining to episodes past.
And there is something that I wanted to make clear because I forget how many people international listen to this podcast.
And when we were covering the Kite Baby mayhem, women saying that, oh my gosh, boycott Kite Baby.
A lot of you didn't understand because you have different government policies than we have here.
So I'm going to go through that By first addressing this comment from Myla Brownstein, who lives in another country, she wrote, No, in America, we do not have a policy where the government takes care of maternity leave.
First and foremost, You don't have to work for the company for a while, depending on what company you work for.
And in this particular kite baby circumstance, she didn't even work for the company for a year.
And she was admitting that she was not going to be able to get back to working for them for a very long time.
So that would have meant that they would have lost her as an employee, plus been on the hook to pay for weeks of maternity leave.
And that is why I was referring to it as an act of charity.
Because literally, if you are a small business owner and you have to continue working To pay an employee while they are out for a very long time for anything, like I said, if you're saying that the policy should be that we should be compassionate and pay this and you're a small business owner, you're asking them to go broke.
And they do need to be concerned with actual profits.
And as we looked at Kite Baby, they are not making that much money.
And so you can see why it doesn't, in America, your benefits package gets better and better as you find corporations that have higher profit margins and they can afford To give you, you know, more.
So to make that clear again, because we even had someone from Bulgaria, she said, we get maternity leave for two years here.
I was like, that is crazy.
That's coming from your government.
The government has maternity leave policies.
We can have that debate about whether or not American government should take this up.
My personal opinion, if you said that there was going to be a two-year policy that you could stay home for two years and the government would pay for it, I would ask the question, why does it need to be done through employers at all?
If we're going to say that the government, that just sounds like a pro-family policy, and the government can just give that to a family without running it through your employer.
I still have an issue with running it through your employer because for two years, that means that your employer doesn't have you there as an employee.
There's no productivity happening there.
The goal of a company should be that you are being productive and you are making money.
And if you're telling me that I have to lose an employee for two years to save her spot, that feels wrong.
Other countries have said that they get one year.
They're just saving your spot.
There must be a job for you.
Why? Any normal company should be able to fill that spot because they hired you for a reason.
They needed you to do something.
In this case, they needed you to be an in-studio coordinator.
Why should they have to keep that bench warm for you and then say to the person that has worked longer than you because you've been gone for a full year and you only worked for a couple of months, you're just temp because the government says that we have to then fire you even though you've been here longer and have Fundamentally been more productive than the woman that was here before you.
We have to benchwarm and now this woman is going to come back.
No, I think that if we want to have pro-family policies and you want the government to do that in a productive way, we should recognize that that's social welfare.
And if that is going to be a form of welfareism that we can get behind, we should also then have a conversation in America about current welfare policies because we do have baby mama policies and we incentivize bad behavior via our social welfare where we will give money to We're good to go.
And again, that is all part of a way bigger conversation if you're going to talk about looping the government into this.
My personal viewpoint, though, is that I don't think businesses should have to endure that cost because they can't afford to endure that cost into perpetuity.
So you kind of have to be up on American politics in that way to understand what we're actually talking about.
So I did want to give you guys that little update.
Summer Girl Rocks on that same topic writes, I'm from Croatia where the government pays one year of your maternity leave.
The amount of money is smaller for the last six months, but still we mothers have at least some time to spend with our children before going back to work.
For the time we are absent, our employer can hire somebody else to fill our spot until we get back.
It blows my mind how women in the USA have such a short amount of time to be at home after giving birth.
Not good for the baby or mother.
Hopefully your government changes policies regarding that.
I guess my question to you would be How long do you have to work before you can get that maternity leave?
Because again, as I said, if you only worked for one month, then you got a year of maternity leave and some other poor woman had to bench warm for you and then she's going to lose that, that just seems remarkably unfair to me.
And I wouldn't be able to get behind that.
Muna writes, in the UK, we get six months paid maternity leave and I have four kids.
I had them while I was working.
I used to complain about my employer and now I know how lucky I have been.
Six months sounds a lot more reasonable than one year, two years, which seems to be happening in Eastern Europe.
But again, I would ask the question, I mean, just make it clear that that's coming from your government, not the employer.
So that is what we are debating here in America because we don't have a government parental leave policy.
And the government saying that we should have one, they are saying that they want to force employers to pay it.
They're not raising their hand and saying we're going to pay it.
So even the political debate we're having is the government trying to mandate it upon small businesses, which is not fair in my view.
Lastly, as a European, I cannot comprehend how people accept to be treated as slaves.
I hope that I have given you some more clarity on that topic.
I don't think it's slavery.
I just think that if I had to be out for a year, I wouldn't work.
Again, part of a much larger conversation that we can have in the future.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, that is all the time that we have for today.
That went by super fast.
But so much more that I want to talk about, and we're going to have to wait until tomorrow to do that.
▲
Export Selection