Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion

[odeon]

Who's "they"?

And seriously, are you saying that Americans cannot change? Why is it that they can get rid of other cultural issues that clearly aren't part of any modern society but not the one that is costing them tens of thousands of lives yearly?

[Al Swearegen]

Who's "they"?

And seriously, are you saying that Americans cannot change? Why is it that they can get rid of other cultural issues that clearly aren't part of any modern society but not the one that is costing them tens of thousands of lives yearly?

Yup. That is what I am saying. Part of what makes them Americans as much as the cultural attachments to the American as Capitalism, Hollywood, The frontier settlers and such.

[Pyraxis]

The USA does seem to be falling behind in the movement to get rid of outdated cultural issues. Australia finally got nationwide same sex marriage and the USA is still squabbling on a state by state basis. There's the healthcare debacle where it stands out among first world nations. It doesn't do too hot on gender equality, though according to this graph Australia doesn't seem to be doing too much better.

The puritan roots run deep.

[Al Swearegen]

The USA does seem to be falling behind in the movement to get rid of outdated cultural issues. Australia finally got nationwide same sex marriage and the USA is still squabbling on a state by state basis. There's the healthcare debacle where it stands out among first world nations. It doesn't do too hot on gender equality, though according to this graph Australia doesn't seem to be doing too much better.

The puritan roots run deep.

Unfortunately, from what I understand many of the measures of gender equality are subjective. "How do you feel about...?" or similarly "Who is the major breadwinner in the family?" or "How many of the people in the top jobs are men?"

Many years ago I worked in an area that had a strong sales component. We were all paid a base salary plus commission. The split was 50%/50% gender male and female. On any given month there were 2 to 3 females in the top 10 salespeople. So were that ever audited for such a survey would it have shown that my company paid its men and women the same? No.

But that MUST be because there were bad hiring practices or the women were not encouraged or were actively discriminated against, right? No, it wasn't. So why did the men do better?

The truth is it does not matter. This is simply one anecdotal indicator that I can easily point to. What about jobs where there is a lot of danger involved or hard working conditions and the better pay that comes with this? Whenever there is a nasty accident at a factory I often hear of x amount of men badly hurt and injured but not very often do they use the term "women"? Why? Perhaps those factories if similarly audited may find an abundance of females in HR or Administration and the men getting higher pay doing the hard manual work and wearing out their bodies and exposing themselves to greater risk for higher pay. Would THEY pass the audit of men and women in that company receiving equal pay?

I have worked for many places and have time and time again been asked to confirm my hourly rate or my payslip with female counterparts for (perhaps) this very reason and at all times my base pay has been identical. Though quite often due to overtime and commission, my net pay has been higher.

I will be clear though. There are sexists and misogynists and misandrists in Australia. I doubt there is any culture without such loathesome people. I am sure there are men who think women should not rise above a certain station. I have not come across these people but perhaps I do not rub shoulders with the movers and shakers that may have such opinions. I suggest you could find some if you looked hard enough but they would not make the general rule.

[Pyraxis]

Yeah. I think we've talked about some of this before. I remember you going into men at your work getting paid more because of working more overtime while women took more time off for families.

I just pulled that gender link off Google, but there's more detail about the study metrics here. It takes into account educational attainment and literacy rates, participation in government, percentage of senior officials and management, and some others. Valid points about guys being expected to do physical labor that destroys their bodies faster. That ought to show up in the life expectancy metrics.

[odeon]

Having just read Al's view on Israel, I find his views here strikingly similar. It seems to me they can be summarised thusly: It's hopeless, people can't change, no point in trying.

I don't buy that at all.

[Al Swearegen]

Having just read Al's view on Israel, I find his views here strikingly similar. It seems to me they can be summarised thusly: It's hopeless, people can't change, no point in trying.

I don't buy that at all.

Sure women can de-prioritise safety and comfort and take on the type of roles that:

breakdown their bodies quicker;
Require working in distant locations
require a lot of overtime
are dirty and smelly
are dangerous
Are physically strenuous
are inflexible with family life
Require high degree of specialisation

You WILL find some women in such roles. They DO exist. But they are anomalies percentage-wise to men who will step up and do them (often are paid higher pay for it)

[Pyraxis]

Yes, but that's only one small part of the picture. You've zeroed in here on it being about women vs men, but that's only one part of the dynamic. A few posts ago it was about whether cultures can change in general. And they do - civilizations have been rising and falling since the dawn of humanity. Sometimes they fall because of war, sometimes because of economic reasons, it varies. Though first-world society today loves to see itself as more progressive and morally enlightened than any culture in the past, there are pockets of culture far in the past that adopted values more "progressive" than what we have today.

Instead of looking at whether women need to take on more physically strenuous jobs to have equality, what about mechanical automation? Women did used to have more strenuous jobs, in the days before washing machines and microwaves, and the times when being a house-maid was common and precluded the possibility of starting your own family.

Physically strenuous jobs don't account for the majority of the pay gap, either. It's the leadership positions that cover that. One CEO makes more than a fuckton of blue collar laborers, and boardrooms are still mostly white guys.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, but that's only one small part of the picture. You've zeroed in here on it being about women vs men, but that's only one part of the dynamic. A few posts ago it was about whether cultures can change in general. And they do - civilizations have been rising and falling since the dawn of humanity. Sometimes they fall because of war, sometimes because of economic reasons, it varies. Though first-world society today loves to see itself as more progressive and morally enlightened than any culture in the past, there are pockets of culture far in the past that adopted values more "progressive" than what we have today.

Instead of looking at whether women need to take on more physically strenuous jobs to have equality, what about mechanical automation? Women did used to have more strenuous jobs, in the days before washing machines and microwaves, and the times when being a house-maid was common and precluded the possibility of starting your own family.

Physically strenuous jobs don't account for the majority of the pay gap, either. It's the leadership positions that cover that. One CEO makes more than a fuckton of blue collar laborers, and boardrooms are still mostly white guys.

So why are so many women NOT CHOOSING leadership positions? I am sorry but I get the whole narrative about men hoarding those positions and old boys clubs BUT what I see is women choosing comfort and flexibility over pay more often than not and I am not sure that is even a bad thing.

It is not to say that there are not some men in some leadership roles that are not complete arses. I personally think one of the qualities that can propel people to such roles is an indifference to others and it is no surprise to me that Psychopaths tend to occupy a large percentage of high level positions.

Let's say you are in your late 20's and making a decent inroad into middle management at or around the same rate as your male counterpart. Now you are in your early 30's and the push needed to cement those top positions requires a Hell of a lot of work and client management but you are wanting to start a family and have long period of time off both to have children and also enjoy being around those children and attending things with them and seeing them when or around when they get home. The thought of late night after late night at the office and not seeing these children is abhorrent to you. You see your male peers gaining weight, making time to catch up with important clients on the weekend, not seeing their kids and carrying mini portraits on their desk trying to either convince everyone what dutiful Fathers they are or simply perhaps to remind themselves what their children look like....maybe the 30's something lady says "Fuck that!"

Maybe she stays at middle management, gets to leave on or around time, has the time off she feels she needs and starts to prioritise differently. BUt the time she is in her 40's she is still middle management and not earning what her male counterparts are but is going to be less stressed, have more life fulfillment and have a longer an dmore fulfilling life as a result of HER CHOICES. Maybe too that is not bad thinking.

[Pyraxis]

You're assuming that the majority of people in those top leadership positions rise through middle management first... are you sure that's accurate? There are just as many gender problems in the Silicon Valley startup culture, if not more, than there are in large companies. Men are far more likely to get funding for startups than women.

But let's include the other minorities too. If it's primarily an issue of choice, why are there not more male immigrant CEO's? Arguments about taking time off to raise a family wouldn't apply to them.

It's true that there's a drop-off around the level of middle management for women. The articles I'm finding point to more reasons than the family issue. According to this study which separates the responses of men and women, time for family is only #3 - in the responses of both genders. #1 and 2 are women being held to higher standards, and the bullshit response of companies "not being ready to" promote more women. There are issues with women being segregated (yes, partially by choice, it's not about pointing fingers) into departments like HR which are unlikely to promote from head of department to an executive position. People who get promoted to executive leadership have a broader range experience than that.

Yeah, the psychopath factor is a thing too. Represented in some of these articles by "men not recognizing women's differing leadership style", which I think is coming at the same phenomenon from a different angle. But it's not actually backed up by profit results.

One analysis found a huge advantage to investing in Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs: A potential return of 348 percent, nearly triple the gain of Standard & Poor's 500 companies.43 Another analysis found that during the downturn of 2007–09, U.S. corporations with women on their boards performed better, partly because of lower debt levels. Profit growth averaged 14 percent over six years, compared with 10 percent for companies with all-male boards, according to the Credit Suisse study.44 Companies with women in senior posts or on boards also have fewer governance-related scandals including bribery, corruption and fraud.

[odeon]

It's interesting how a discussion about Islam morphed into gun control and then women's rights and the glass ceiling.

[Al Swearegen]

You're assuming that the majority of people in those top leadership positions rise through middle management first... are you sure that's accurate? There are just as many gender problems in the Silicon Valley startup culture, if not more, than there are in large companies. Men are far more likely to get funding for startups than women.

But let's include the other minorities too. If it's primarily an issue of choice, why are there not more male immigrant CEO's? Arguments about taking time off to raise a family wouldn't apply to them.

It's true that there's a drop-off around the level of middle management for women. The articles I'm finding point to more reasons than the family issue. According to this study which separates the responses of men and women, time for family is only #3 - in the responses of both genders. #1 and 2 are women being held to higher standards, and the bullshit response of companies "not being ready to" promote more women. There are issues with women being segregated (yes, partially by choice, it's not about pointing fingers) into departments like HR which are unlikely to promote from head of department to an executive position. People who get promoted to executive leadership have a broader range experience than that.

Yeah, the psychopath factor is a thing too. Represented in some of these articles by "men not recognizing women's differing leadership style", which I think is coming at the same phenomenon from a different angle. But it's not actually backed up by profit results.

One analysis found a huge advantage to investing in Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs: A potential return of 348 percent, nearly triple the gain of Standard & Poor's 500 companies.43 Another analysis found that during the downturn of 2007–09, U.S. corporations with women on their boards performed better, partly because of lower debt levels. Profit growth averaged 14 percent over six years, compared with 10 percent for companies with all-male boards, according to the Credit Suisse study.44 Companies with women in senior posts or on boards also have fewer governance-related scandals including bribery, corruption and fraud.

No, but isn't that the entire point? GENDER difference?

What I see (and I admit this is completely anecdotal) is a number of up and coming women leaders dropping out temporarily to have kids and are given Maternity leave and their place guaranteed when they return and some do return. Some don't. Of those that do a large percentage of them start reducing hours either in taking up Part time roles or doing set hours. Those that do come back are often not willing to make work their life like so many of their male counterparts. Some absolutely do and start getting back to where they left back and fit the family things in edgeways like so many of their male counterparts.

I do not say that these things are praise-worthy. I believe if you become a politician you need to necessarily sacrifice your values and if you become a manager you need to sacrifice your life to work. I think it is a Faustian Bargain that women are not as keen to make....in general. Same as women doing the dangerous, remote, dirty, physically destroying jobs. You WILL find women in this role but they are few and far between because it is a choice and one they choose not to make for the same reasons - the extra pay is not worth the sacrifice they would be making.

None of this I find the least bit objectionable. I personally am reasonably risk averse and nor would I give up my life to work any more than the unpaid overtime I put in already. The only thing I find objectionable is that when grown adults make informed choices that this is now used as a blunt instrument to beat a narrative about inequality. Everyone has equality of choice not equality of outcome and with every choice comes rewards and disadvantages. If women through informed and honest choice do get some tangible benefits and more balance and less stress and less risk...I say that is a good choice for them BUT that comes with forgoing extra pay. Men, if they choose these positions with extra pay, have no reason to then complain that they have no freedom and balance.

[Pyraxis]

None of this I find the least bit objectionable. I personally am reasonably risk averse and nor would I give up my life to work any more than the unpaid overtime I put in already.

If it's unpaid it's probably not affecting the surveys. 

The only thing I find objectionable is that when grown adults make informed choices that this is now used as a blunt instrument to beat a narrative about inequality. Everyone has equality of choice not equality of outcome and with every choice comes rewards and disadvantages. If women through informed and honest choice do get some tangible benefits and more balance and less stress and less risk...I say that is a good choice for them BUT that comes with forgoing extra pay. Men, if they choose these positions with extra pay, have no reason to then complain that they have no freedom and balance.

Ok that's a really good point. I did see a lot of calls in these articles for quotas, but I don't think that's the best answer.

One thing that's happening in this part of the world is paternity leave is becoming more of an equal thing. Women are still guaranteed a set amount of time off for dealing with the physical repercussions of pregnancy, but beyond that, there is a specified amount of time which can be split among the spouses however they choose. Giving men more freedom if they do want to choose family. I still hear guys ribbing each other at work about how much paternity leave they took - haven't heard that directed at a woman yet - but it does lay some groundwork for culture change.

[Al Swearegen]

None of this I find the least bit objectionable. I personally am reasonably risk averse and nor would I give up my life to work any more than the unpaid overtime I put in already.

If it's unpaid it's probably not affecting the surveys. 

The only thing I find objectionable is that when grown adults make informed choices that this is now used as a blunt instrument to beat a narrative about inequality. Everyone has equality of choice not equality of outcome and with every choice comes rewards and disadvantages. If women through informed and honest choice do get some tangible benefits and more balance and less stress and less risk...I say that is a good choice for them BUT that comes with forgoing extra pay. Men, if they choose these positions with extra pay, have no reason to then complain that they have no freedom and balance.

Ok that's a really good point. I did see a lot of calls in these articles for quotas, but I don't think that's the best answer.

One thing that's happening in this part of the world is paternity leave is becoming more of an equal thing. Women are still guaranteed a set amount of time off for dealing with the physical repercussions of pregnancy, but beyond that, there is a specified amount of time which can be split among the spouses however they choose. Giving men more freedom if they do want to choose family. I still hear guys ribbing each other at work about how much paternity leave they took - haven't heard that directed at a woman yet - but it does lay some groundwork for culture change.

Paternity leave will always work best when women and men can take their leave off together. House husbands do exist and admittedly probably more than lady high rise window washers but trying to swing the culture to a point where men will not feel a driving need to be the breadwinner is going to be a long road.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

That was either the gullibility meter or the dishonesty meter breaking, folks.

... or the just making shit up as you go along meter.