INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: RageBeoulve on December 09, 2013, 05:40:23 PM
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
-
:facepalm2:
-
Honestly how privileged are these fucks? 30 seconds of discomfort CHANGES THEIR LIFE FOREVER. The rest of their lives must be a structured, sheltered, perfect existence.
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
:thumbup:
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
I raped that white bitch big time, but she enjoyed it. O0
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
That's not enough for you? Look at those people. Besides, you actually put stock in the "news"? Huehue
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
That's not enough for you? Look at those people. Besides, you actually put stock in the "news"? Huehue
No and yes, in order.
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
That's not enough for you? Look at those people. Besides, you actually put stock in the "news"? Huehue
Not clicking your link. Don't watch tv, so know very little of the news.
-
Might actually discuss a topic with you, Rage, if you would ever paste an article.
That's not enough for you? Look at those people. Besides, you actually put stock in the "news"? Huehue
Not clicking your link. Don't watch tv, so know very little of the news.
Oh I forgot you think links are the devil. Well i'll explain then. Its a bunch of people posting incomplete stories about how they were "almost raped" once. Its retarded.
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
I Was Almost Raped
He Molested Me, I Am A Statistic.
While you were out eating dinner or sleeping I was the 1 and 4 being molested. Me. June 29,2013. 8:50pm. I had met this guy from my school he was new. I won't say names.. He moved into my apartment complex and I would see him at the pool with a freind every day. We hit it off kinda and started talking and hanging out. I had a bad gut feeling but didnt listen to it he kept a knife on him he was a bad boy. I was a innocent sweet girl. We would kiss and make out and he would touch me but I didn't really think of it. Until... We went to a secluded park at night. My mom told me to come home but I didn't listen. He put me on his lap and kissed me on the slide I then fell back and he put his hands onto my bikini bottoms (I had just swimming) I was feeling weird and we kept kissing and finally we stopped. I tried to move his hand and I couldn't he was 6'3 huge athletic I was 5'3 95lbs. And he would always say how short I was and how I had to stand on my tippy toes to kiss him. Well he had me LAYED across his lap and he was fingering me. This went on for 15 mins and I just lay there trying to squirm and struggle and he wouldn't let me go! He got rough and I lay there watching the sun go down and hearing his heavy breathing in my ear and him kissing my face and neck. I'm thinking no. Stop and I'm saying it and I'm whimpering and I couldn't fight he had a knife I was to scared. He finally let me go when HE was PLEASED. And it was MY body! He then texts me and says Srry if I made things weird ill just delete your number. I'm broken. I was a statistic I'm 13 he was 14 I think. But I've been crying and I need someone to talk to! Please! I'm scared...
^How would you feel if this was your daughter?
-
Well i'll explain then.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bP6k59dMHBI/UnQmzKaljjI/AAAAAAAAZUA/3ZDsMcXw4d0/s400/grumpy-cat-8141_preview_zps9177ab07.png)
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
I Was Almost Raped
He Molested Me, I Am A Statistic.
While you were out eating dinner or sleeping I was the 1 and 4 being molested. Me. June 29,2013. 8:50pm. I had met this guy from my school he was new. I won't say names.. He moved into my apartment complex and I would see him at the pool with a freind every day. We hit it off kinda and started talking and hanging out. I had a bad gut feeling but didnt listen to it he kept a knife on him he was a bad boy. I was a innocent sweet girl. We would kiss and make out and he would touch me but I didn't really think of it. Until... We went to a secluded park at night. My mom told me to come home but I didn't listen. He put me on his lap and kissed me on the slide I then fell back and he put his hands onto my bikini bottoms (I had just swimming) I was feeling weird and we kept kissing and finally we stopped. I tried to move his hand and I couldn't he was 6'3 huge athletic I was 5'3 95lbs. And he would always say how short I was and how I had to stand on my tippy toes to kiss him. Well he had me LAYED across his lap and he was fingering me. This went on for 15 mins and I just lay there trying to squirm and struggle and he wouldn't let me go! He got rough and I lay there watching the sun go down and hearing his heavy breathing in my ear and him kissing my face and neck. I'm thinking no. Stop and I'm saying it and I'm whimpering and I couldn't fight he had a knife I was to scared. He finally let me go when HE was PLEASED. And it was MY body! He then texts me and says Srry if I made things weird ill just delete your number. I'm broken. I was a statistic I'm 13 he was 14 I think. But I've been crying and I need someone to talk to! Please! I'm scared...
^How would you feel if this was your daughter?
Daughters are capable of making shit up too. If it was my daughter i'd actually take the time to listen to her though. If she was lying I would ground her and tell her to apologize for spreading rumors.
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
-
It is annoying when people compare non-rape situations to rape, like when kit says she feels like what sinsboldly did to her was like being raped, but near-rape is close enough/scary enough to rape to compare.
-
It is annoying when people compare non-rape situations to rape, like when kit says she feels like what sinsboldly did to her was like being raped, but near-rape is close enough/scary enough to rape to compare.
++
I am astonished at how freely the term is used these days.
We have kids (well, teens) who grab another's ear bud to listen in to what the other is listening to and that action is called "podrape" FFS!
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
Yes. :zoinks:
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
I Was Almost Raped
He Molested Me, I Am A Statistic.
While you were out eating dinner or sleeping I was the 1 and 4 being molested. Me. June 29,2013. 8:50pm. I had met this guy from my school he was new. I won't say names.. He moved into my apartment complex and I would see him at the pool with a freind every day. We hit it off kinda and started talking and hanging out. I had a bad gut feeling but didnt listen to it he kept a knife on him he was a bad boy. I was a innocent sweet girl. We would kiss and make out and he would touch me but I didn't really think of it. Until... We went to a secluded park at night. My mom told me to come home but I didn't listen. He put me on his lap and kissed me on the slide I then fell back and he put his hands onto my bikini bottoms (I had just swimming) I was feeling weird and we kept kissing and finally we stopped. I tried to move his hand and I couldn't he was 6'3 huge athletic I was 5'3 95lbs. And he would always say how short I was and how I had to stand on my tippy toes to kiss him. Well he had me LAYED across his lap and he was fingering me. This went on for 15 mins and I just lay there trying to squirm and struggle and he wouldn't let me go! He got rough and I lay there watching the sun go down and hearing his heavy breathing in my ear and him kissing my face and neck. I'm thinking no. Stop and I'm saying it and I'm whimpering and I couldn't fight he had a knife I was to scared. He finally let me go when HE was PLEASED. And it was MY body! He then texts me and says Srry if I made things weird ill just delete your number. I'm broken. I was a statistic I'm 13 he was 14 I think. But I've been crying and I need someone to talk to! Please! I'm scared...
^How would you feel if this was your daughter?
If "fingering" included digital penetration, this would fully meet the "unwanted penetration" definition of rape. No "almost." It's certainly sexual assault.
-
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266 (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Was-Almost-Raped/4266)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiWGkDWclGE89SLLr2nBvHC7M7zOUAjw2N4eSkV7s2252wgkzp)
I Was Almost Raped
He Molested Me, I Am A Statistic.
While you were out eating dinner or sleeping I was the 1 and 4 being molested. Me. June 29,2013. 8:50pm. I had met this guy from my school he was new. I won't say names.. He moved into my apartment complex and I would see him at the pool with a freind every day. We hit it off kinda and started talking and hanging out. I had a bad gut feeling but didnt listen to it he kept a knife on him he was a bad boy. I was a innocent sweet girl. We would kiss and make out and he would touch me but I didn't really think of it. Until... We went to a secluded park at night. My mom told me to come home but I didn't listen. He put me on his lap and kissed me on the slide I then fell back and he put his hands onto my bikini bottoms (I had just swimming) I was feeling weird and we kept kissing and finally we stopped. I tried to move his hand and I couldn't he was 6'3 huge athletic I was 5'3 95lbs. And he would always say how short I was and how I had to stand on my tippy toes to kiss him. Well he had me LAYED across his lap and he was fingering me. This went on for 15 mins and I just lay there trying to squirm and struggle and he wouldn't let me go! He got rough and I lay there watching the sun go down and hearing his heavy breathing in my ear and him kissing my face and neck. I'm thinking no. Stop and I'm saying it and I'm whimpering and I couldn't fight he had a knife I was to scared. He finally let me go when HE was PLEASED. And it was MY body! He then texts me and says Srry if I made things weird ill just delete your number. I'm broken. I was a statistic I'm 13 he was 14 I think. But I've been crying and I need someone to talk to! Please! I'm scared...
^How would you feel if this was your daughter?
If "fingering" included digital penetration, this would fully meet the "unwanted penetration" definition of rape. No "almost." It's certainly sexual assault.
If the story wasn't obvious garbage. I can clearly tell its made up.
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
IDK about him but I say that its all part of God's plan, G!
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
IDK about him but I say that its all part of God's plan, G!
You can either bleed on my knife or shit on my dick, nigger. >:(
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
Yes. :zoinks:
I guess the same goes for people who barely escaped an assault or managed to dodge a bullet.
-
I think it ought to be better recognized that rape is not a one-size-fits-all term. The experience of being forced at gunpoint by a stranger is different than the experience of being pushed too far by a boyfriend which is different still to the experience of blacking out at a party and waking up knowing something happened that you don't remember.
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
IDK about him but I say that its all part of God's plan, G!
You can either bleed on my knife or shit on my dick, nigger. >:(
Why would you like someone to shit on your dick?
And even more, why would you want someone to dislike, shit on your dick?
-
I think it ought to be better recognized that rape is not a one-size-fits-all term. The experience of being forced at gunpoint by a stranger is different than the experience of being pushed too far by a boyfriend which is different still to the experience of blacking out at a party and waking up knowing something happened that you don't remember.
... or being forcibly tortured to think that gang rape was eminent and having to fight for ones "life" to get away.
Read back a bit and you will know that I do understand about registering specific quanta as regards to the possibility or the fact of rape.
I will never forget, nor will I ever regret my vengeful measures to ensure it never happened again.
-
Don't need to read back when I read the first time.
My comment wasn't to take any issue with you.
In retrospect I should have added a couple more cases or challenged directly... hmm, Rage, because while I get why he was repulsed by the first few accounts in his link, I don't see any reason to think the one that got posted here is made up.
-
What are you saying, Rage? That they should harden the fuck up?
IDK about him but I say that its all part of God's plan, G!
You can either bleed on my knife or shit on my dick, nigger. >:(
Why would you like someone to shit on your dick?
And even more, why would you want someone to dislike, shit on your dick?
I was quoting the butterfly effect. :P
-
Don't need to read back when I read the first time.
My comment wasn't to take any issue with you.
In retrospect I should have added a couple more cases or challenged directly... hmm, Rage, because while I get why he was repulsed by the first few accounts in his link, I don't see any reason to think the one that got posted here is made up.
Well I mean just look at it. I've been writing quite a bit lately, and I've gotten to the point where I can tell when someone is bringing something up from memory or making things up as they go along.
-
What motivation would a thirteen-year-old girl have to make up a rape story on the internet under an alias about a 14-year-old she knows IRL?
-
Don't need to read back when I read the first time.
My comment wasn't to take any issue with you.
In retrospect I should have added a couple more cases or challenged directly... hmm, Rage, because while I get why he was repulsed by the first few accounts in his link, I don't see any reason to think the one that got posted here is made up.
Well I mean just look at it. I've been writing quite a bit lately, and I've gotten to the point where I can tell when someone is bringing something up from memory or making things up as they go along.
You think you can. Different.
-
What motivation would a thirteen-year-old girl have to make up a rape story on the internet under an alias about a 14-year-old she knows IRL?
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_24535161/jury-finds-girls-parents-liable-calling-teacher-perv (http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_24535161/jury-finds-girls-parents-liable-calling-teacher-perv)
I don't know.
That all said, it is a very difficult issue. I see a very real agenda in society to paint men as either (incompetent/stupid/lazy/helpless/immature/dependent/losers) or (violent/aggressive/psychopathic/sexual and physical aggressors). Look at any sitcom, cartoon, series.....you see men falling into one of these two stereotypes and the women normally smart, sassy, successful, independent, powerful.
The media tends to focus stories to show the same. Where there is a question of a woman doing something terrible, normally it is a given that she "needs help/support" and a man doing the same is a violent horrible thing.
THIS is the mentally fostered in society. So as a consequence. Women making false claims are given attention and supported and the men accused are guilty before anything is proved one way or another. Which is absolutely fine......until you are working with a society increasingly convinced that women or girls can not lie and that men always will.
There are exceptions to the rule such as the article above BUT generally women lying and found to be lying do not suffer a consequence of this. Men will usually suffer a consequence of this even when proved not to have done anything wrong.
-
What motivation would a thirteen-year-old girl have to make up a rape story on the internet under an alias about a 14-year-old she knows IRL?
Maybe they're having some little tiff. He plays video games too much. Maybe she's just an asshole. Who knows? ^What ross just said there is true, and yeah I really don't know what that stupid trend is about. Its absolutely retarded, is all I can say about it. Retarded and harmful to men.
-
Just to be fair. One of my problems is something like that almost raped, is I am SURE that there is the kind of beat-up bullshit in there that Rage mentions. I think it is evil. That said I sure as Hell would not be able to pick truth from fiction and think that there is equal amounts of both.
I hate the fact that there is. I would like rape and rapists exposed. I do not want the victims of rape to be exposed to more harm or doubt or anything like that. I want women to be protected and for all rapists (male and female) to be punished.
But the current trends take advantage of this and it hurts people that are genuine about being raped.
Stop Harassment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njqhlI_KNW4#ws)
-
Its just childish silliness, man. Plain and simple. Very few women naturally think stupid things like this, they're taught to. And they're taught this through media and word of mouth. This horseshit originates from ugly bitches that can't get laid, mentally ill women, or social engineers.
Yeah, some women get raped, and have been raped. That's nasty and bad. But this "rape culture" bullshit, and just about everything third wave feminism does just makes that kind of shit worse. Who says those girls ALWAYS get raped by dudes anyway? In those "almost raped" stories that are popping up online by the MILLIONS in various places, its ALWAYS a fucking dude doing the raping. Ever notice that?
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
Even when thought about seriously, "Are men a danger to society? Moreso than women? Would it be advantageous to isolate men?" its just bullshit.
So yeah. Just to make things PERFECTLY CLEAR, that's why I made this thread. It was a quiet and clever jab at the childish gender war faggotry, and the divisive and catty tactics being used.
-
This is Atheism Plus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqlW0WdB5lM#)
-
Society may paint men as incompetent, idiotic brutes, but it hasn't been enough to change the old boys' club problem in business. I'm still paid less than men who can do equivalent work, and I still sit through company meetings where the guys make jokes about how the women's bathroom shouldn't have as many stalls because there aren't enough of us to warrant them.
Re the girl - yeah there are disturbing cases where teen and preteen girls decide to ruin a man's reputation by lying about how they were molested. I'm glad the judge saw through what the girls and their parents did in Al's case of the phys ed teacher.
In the girl's account that Rage posted, I think it was unlikely to be about trying to hurt the guy's reputation because the girl did it under an alias. If she wanted to spread harmful rumors, why wouldn't she have gone to her mother or a female teacher? No, I suspect she knows that what she did was stupid - going to the park alone with the guy late at night even after she was warned against it. She was pushing limits and found out what happens when you do and now she knows. Posting it on an internet site seems more like testing the waters to see how people would react - do they tell her she's been violated and get outraged, or do they ignore/belittle it? I couldn't find the account again to see if there were any comments posted.
-
Society may paint men as incompetent, idiotic brutes, but it hasn't been enough to change the old boys' club problem in business. I'm still paid less than men who can do equivalent work, and I still sit through company meetings where the guys make jokes about how the women's bathroom shouldn't have as many stalls because there aren't enough of us to warrant them.
Re the girl - yeah there are disturbing cases where teen and preteen girls decide to ruin a man's reputation by lying about how they were molested. I'm glad the judge saw through what the girls and their parents did in Al's case of the phys ed teacher.
In the girl's account that Rage posted, I think it was unlikely to be about trying to hurt the guy's reputation because the girl did it under an alias. If she wanted to spread harmful rumors, why wouldn't she have gone to her mother or a female teacher? No, I suspect she knows that what she did was stupid - going to the park alone with the guy late at night even after she was warned against it. She was pushing limits and found out what happens when you do and now she knows. Posting it on an internet site seems more like testing the waters to see how people would react - do they tell her she's been violated and get outraged, or do they ignore/belittle it? I couldn't find the account again to see if there were any comments posted.
why wouldn't she have gone to her mother or a female teacher?
Because lying about something like that is frowned upon pretty severely. Its pretty obvious to me that she didn't want that coming back to bite her.
and I still sit through company meetings where the guys make jokes about how the women's bathroom shouldn't have as many stalls because there aren't enough of us to warrant them
Wouldn't that be easier to solve if we as a species put away childish silliness like a voice for men and radical feminism, then stood shoulder to shoulder and acted like adults? :green:
Lets love each other, guys. (I like fighting and all, but being friends is much more fun. Having friends who will fight me for fun would be ideal.)
-
Why are you paid less than the guys in your company doing the same work Pyraxis? I thought that was illegal?
As for the bathroom stalls thing, It sounds both silly and flippant. Was it sexist jabs at women or a man being stupid (Men can be you know)
-
I wonder about this as well.
My wife works at a union job and her wages (and benefits) are set by the union agreement with a corporate entity (UPS). Only thing that can affect her earnings is whether or not she can take on certain jobs (daily basis and such) due to tenure concerns. More tenured employees have choices that noobs do not. She now has a great deal of tenure and can choose whether or not she makes overtime or gets off early, most of the time.
This time of the season is different, however ... - - - ... fucking Christmas season (they call it Peak) requires that everyone put in twelve to twenty hours of overtime each week.
Want to keep your job?
.... then you have to totally die for a couple of months.
But she makes the same as anyone else with the same tenure.
-
BTW, I believe the concept of tenure should be illegal.
Tenure and what horror drains down from it is why our school systems are rated so LOW in the worldwide average.
-
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
What if a third of them is true? A fourth? A fifth?
I don't doubt that there are both kinds, but I sincerely doubt you can tell the difference in each and every case.
-
If they were hand written, I could tell if they're lying. Every lie contains some truth. A woman once showed me how to see it in handwriting. It's very interesting.
-
I don't know for certain about the salary difference. I know the statistics show that it's likely, but I don't know a socially acceptable way to find out the salary of everyone at the company with the same job title. I'm outside the rumor circles because I barely socialize.
I do know that about 95% of the executives are male.
A couple years ago when we were implementing a feature for players to put their own faces on their custom characters in the game we were making, I brought up the question of what female players would do. (The characters in that game were traditionally male.) It was quickly decided that resources couldn't be spared to implement a female option. Last year the question came up of rebuilding the randomizer that populates the crowds. Again, though every character was being remodeled, it was decided that it was too much effort to make some of them female.
It's decisions like that which lead me to suspect that equalizing glass-ceiling type issues just isn't on the agenda. If there were hard proof, of course there could be lawsuits and stuff, but what makes it insidious is that there isn't any hard proof, it's a long series of small inconsequential decisions.
-
As for the bathroom stalls thing, It sounds both silly and flippant. Was it sexist jabs at women or a man being stupid (Men can be you know)
I don't know. Usually I don't give a shit about misogynistic jokes, but for some reason that one stung. Maybe because one of the ways I stay sane when I get overloaded at work is to spend too much time hiding out in the bathroom. Maybe it was because it was one of the high-level people in front of a meeting room of 150 or so people, and the atmosphere was supposed to be one of promoting team unity.
-
I think that the glass ceiling thing is something that has been for of a feeling rather than a factual thing. More subjective than objective.
What I mean by this, is that in Western society, the lowest on the totem pole are the unemployed homeless. Of these the majority are men. The services available for men that are homeless or have been displaced from their homes by their partners get little in the way of recourse from law enforcement, laws or community services. The same can not be said for women.
In pretty much the rest of society, there is an equality of potential, treatment, and so on.
Then comes the higher level management. It is no small wonder that most of the people there are men. It is not to do with bias nor preference. It is simply that many women do not seek these positions in comparison to men OR once they are in these positions, drop out.
Women do chose to stay at home with family and the like. Men often see themselves as not having that choice. If their own partner has a lower paying or part-time job or is staying at home, they do not see themselves as having the option to staying at home or taking on a less demanding/lower paid job. So when a position is available in management - who is actually available? Who applies?
Not to sound crass, but...it is a sausagefest. So a LOT of men in these position for reasonable reasons. I there any good reason that it would not "feel like there was a glass ceiling"? Any good reason that with votes it would not favour the preferences of the majority? Any good reason that it would not feel like a boys club. The men at this level too, are likely to be the most determined, cut-throat bastards in society and have managed to knife their way to the top. Are they going to be nice guys given to not getting everything their own way and ignoring anything they did not agree with if it was possible?
More women need to apply for these positions and men or "the patriarchy" can not be blamed for the 95% figures that are thrown at us constantly to verify some conspiratorial withholding of equality in management.
I do not like the feminist agenda and the lies that permeate from the agenda. There is no calling it true, there is skewing of figures or not contextualising statements or figures made or making things subjective rather than objective. It is all dishonest and unto itself indulgent victimhood, not helping society, and certainly not addressing inequality.
-
Equality for the sexes is happening fast, in the homeless sector. Families with young kids are making it hard for the salvos to find night care for the homeless. They don't want them to bunk with die hard addicts.
-
Is it? Here there are plenty of battered women's shelters, but I've never seen a battered men's shelter. Near as I can tell, it's true that homeless men get a lot less services and support than women or children.
-
Then comes the higher level management. It is no small wonder that most of the people there are men. It is not to do with bias nor preference. It is simply that many women do not seek these positions in comparison to men OR once they are in these positions, drop out.
Women do chose to stay at home with family and the like. Men often see themselves as not having that choice. If their own partner has a lower paying or part-time job or is staying at home, they do not see themselves as having the option to staying at home or taking on a less demanding/lower paid job.
So why are there so few single moms in upper management? They have just as much need to bring in an income to support their families as fathers do. And a single parent of either gender has more expenses, because they need to arrange for childcare. Are you going to tell me it's solely because single moms don't apply?
Or that they're not cutthroat enough?
The truth is in upper management there are certain things that one needs to do in order to present the right image, and it's not about who needs the money the most. It's about what your golf game is like (seriously! this matters!) and how you dress and whether your lifestyle fits in with the people who are already there.
Yeah it's a sausagefest.
The men at this level too, are likely to be the most determined, cut-throat bastards in society and have managed to knife their way to the top. Are they going to be nice guys given to not getting everything their own way and ignoring anything they did not agree with if it was possible?
Which is pretty much the point. Just applying isn't enough.
-
No I think that it is the other way around.
Here is what I mean. The last 10 positions, 20 applicants each time. 3 women 17 guys each time. Shortlisted 1 woman 6 guys. A guy got the job in 9 out of 10 instances. With these kind of odds a pretty compelling case can be made that the "best" person was chosen and the field was competitive and mostly populated by capable men with not many women to choose from.
Now if the applications were more like this, The last 10 positions, 20 applicants each time. 9 women 11 guys each time. Shortlisted 1 woman 6 guys. A guy got the job in 9 out of 10 instances. THAT is a very hard this to "sell" to anyone looking at whether they are not favouring the male gender.
I do not think, at the same time that women ought to be given jobs to assist quotas or statistics. If the women in the field are objectively not up to scratch, then they ought not be given the job. I do think though that at this level, the applicants are likely to be fairly close and the difference between the shortlisted man and the shortlisted woman comes down to the subjective "who do we want to work here and fits best with us".
I do not think much of the people in the Upper Echelons of management. By and large, male or female, I dislike most of them for the same reasons I dislike politicians.
Do I think a single Mum is likely to seriously consider upper management roles? Depends on the lady themselves. Most men don't and most women won't but I do see a lot of single mums choose to stay at home or to do part time work or consulting or the like. They make these choices and I can not discount their choices as without merit.
I can tell you that in my area of sales. There is two females that like doing overtime. There is one of them in the top maybe 10 best salespeople. It has always been this way. Why? I don't know BUT if we were to assess in my department, who made the most money, men or women, what do you think the figures would tell you and what would the figures inform if present without this context to back it? Now I could have someone point to the figures and I would say the reasons, and they could ask a couple of questions.
"Do you think that the ladies are not as good salespeople as the men?"
"Do you think they are not as dedicated at earning money as the guys?"
What could I say? I feel your questions to me are similarly loaded and you are looking to me to provide answers that would have me look sexist or to support an ideology of suppression. I do not feel that either is fair or true.
-
If they were hand written, I could tell if they're lying. Every lie contains some truth. A woman once showed me how to see it in handwriting. It's very interesting.
Sorry, Jack, but I call bullsh*t on that. Graphology is pseudoscience.
-
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
What if a third of them is true? A fourth? A fifth?
I don't doubt that there are both kinds, but I sincerely doubt you can tell the difference in each and every case.
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
-
I don't know for certain about the salary difference. I know the statistics show that it's likely, but I don't know a socially acceptable way to find out the salary of everyone at the company with the same job title. I'm outside the rumor circles because I barely socialize.
I do know that about 95% of the executives are male.
A couple years ago when we were implementing a feature for players to put their own faces on their custom characters in the game we were making, I brought up the question of what female players would do. (The characters in that game were traditionally male.) It was quickly decided that resources couldn't be spared to implement a female option. Last year the question came up of rebuilding the randomizer that populates the crowds. Again, though every character was being remodeled, it was decided that it was too much effort to make some of them female.
It's decisions like that which lead me to suspect that equalizing glass-ceiling type issues just isn't on the agenda. If there were hard proof, of course there could be lawsuits and stuff, but what makes it insidious is that there isn't any hard proof, it's a long series of small inconsequential decisions.
Stay outside the rumor circles, friend. Rumors are bullshit.
-
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
C'mon, can't you see DFGL being behind some of those stories? That's the sort of behavior that causes problems. Not everyday guys going about their lives and flirting with girls. Nobody here's trying to lynch the whole gender.
-
If they were hand written, I could tell if they're lying. Every lie contains some truth. A woman once showed me how to see it in handwriting. It's very interesting.
Sorry, Jack, but I call bullsh*t on that. Graphology is pseudoscience.
She was a human lie detector, working for the feds for over a decade. She just sat in the room while people were interviewed. the handwriting bit was only a small part of her seminar. I assume she had her job for a reason. Her presentation was very interesting, and I envied her for her powers.
-
Interesting... what other techniques did she talk about in her seminar?
-
The usual stuff people associate with lies, facial expression, body language, voice inflections. The handwriting was the only thing I've never seen in books on the subject. Am terrible at spotting lies. Knowing the cues in theory is one thing, but impossible for me to put into practice.
-
If they were hand written, I could tell if they're lying. Every lie contains some truth. A woman once showed me how to see it in handwriting. It's very interesting.
Sorry, Jack, but I call bullsh*t on that. Graphology is pseudoscience.
She was a human lie detector, working for the feds for over a decade. She just sat in the room while people were interviewed. the handwriting bit was only a small part of her seminar. I assume she had her job for a reason. Her presentation was very interesting, and I envied her for her powers.
Guess I should also point out, she wasn't presenting anything to do with handwriting analysis. It was just a simple matter of turning the page upside down. A written statement held before the group, then turned over. Everyone in the room could spot the lies, even though unable to actually read it. People's handwringing changes when they lie. It's just not noticeable until the page is flipped. Like I said, interesting.
-
Being a human lie detector is different from being able to detect lies in handwriting. Body language is a much better way of assessing if someone is being shifty and such.
Also, just because she worked for the feds doesn't mean it's true that she has psychic powers.
-
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2447/is-handwriting-analysis-legit-science (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2447/is-handwriting-analysis-legit-science)
Is handwriting analysis legit science?
April 18, 2003
Dear Cecil:
What's the Straight Dope on handwriting analysis? I know that handwriting experts' testimony can be accepted in court, so there must be something to it. But I have a hard time believing that a smart criminal wouldn't be able to change his writing to avoid detection. On a related issue, can an "expert" really tell something about your personality from your handwriting (e.g., that loops in your g's and y's indicate a high sex drive)? If that were true, it would seem that one's handwriting would change from day to day, which it doesn't.
— Kristin in Sausalito, California
At first this question might seem like a great opportunity to lay out the difference between science and pseudoscience. On the one hand we have forensic handwriting analysis, in which an expert decides whether two or more samples were written by the same person, e.g., whether a signature was forged. On the other we have graphology, in which some sage tries to divine a subject's personality traits from his or her handwriting. While graphology enjoys about the same prestige as palm reading, forensic handwriting analysis has helped send people to jail since the days of the Lindbergh kidnapping. But in the eyes of the law, the credibility of such analysis is on the wane. Thanks to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the early 90s, more and more federal judges are deciding that while forensic handwriting analysis may not be quackery, it's not exactly science either.
A meta-analysis of 200 scientific studies of graphology by Geoffery A. Dean (published in The Write Stuff: Evaluations of Graphology--The Study of Handwriting Analysis, edited by Barry L. Beyerstein and Dale F. Beyerstein, Prometheus Books, 1992) found that it was worthless as a predictor of personality. That hasn't prevented people who ought to know better from relying on it. In France, an estimated 70 percent of companies use graphology when making hiring decisions. (Between 5 and 10 percent of U.S. and UK companies do so.) Law enforcement authorities sometimes turn to graphology and kindred techniques when profiling criminals, as in the case of the D.C. sniper last fall. But such methods are often the last resort of police desperate to appear to be doing something. There's only one well-documented case of a bad guy actually being caught by a profile--George Metesky, the "Mad Bomber" of New York City in the 1940s and '50s--and he was nabbed less because of his handwriting than because he'd revealed too many clues about his past in a letter to a newspaper.
For a long time forensic handwriting analysis seemed more respectable, but its status has been shaky since 1993, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Previously the chief criterion for the admissibility of expert testimony had been whether it was based on techniques "generally accepted" by scientists. Daubert gave federal judges much greater discretion in deciding admissibility. It suggested they consider (1) whether a theory or technique can be tested, (2) whether it's been subject to peer review, (3) whether standards exist for applying the technique, and (4) the technique's error rate.
Sounds reasonable, eh? But Daubert created an uproar, because the dirty little secret of much so-called expert testimony was this: though it was possible in principle to test and validate most forensic techniques, in many cases no one had ever done so. In 2002 one judge even restricted testimony based on fingerprint analysis, saying he was unconvinced the technique was a science rather than a mix of craft and guesswork.
No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.
Prosecutors scrambling to find scientific validation for handwriting analysis last year touted a study by Sargur Srihari, a professor of computer science at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Srihari subjected 1,500 writing samples to computer analysis. Conclusion: In 96 percent of cases, the writer of a sample could be positively identified based on quantitative features of his handwriting such as letter dimensions and pen pressure. Skeptics objected that lab results using a computer prove nothing about what a human can do in the real world, and who can argue? If expert testimony is going to send people up the river, it better be more than some mope's prejudices dressed up as science.
— Cecil Adams
-
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. She wasn't discussing handwriting analysis in the sense you're discussing. Also didn't say she was psychic. She was a trained psychologist and an expert in her field. I viewed her skillset as 'powers' because that type of thing is beyond my ability. She was awesome.
-
Body language is a much better way of assessing if someone is being shifty and such.
Except for the poor autistics and their body language. :laugh:
-
:nerdy:
-
Body language is a much better way of assessing if someone is being shifty and such.
Except for the poor autistics and their body language. :laugh:
:indeed:
That's why we have the NSA; they keep an eye on the shifty internet autistics. :ninja:
-
I'm feeling shifty. :GA:
-
I rape my cats
-
I rape my cats
:zombiefuck:
-
I don't know for certain about the salary difference. I know the statistics show that it's likely, but I don't know a socially acceptable way to find out the salary of everyone at the company with the same job title. I'm outside the rumor circles because I barely socialize.
I do know that about 95% of the executives are male.
A couple years ago when we were implementing a feature for players to put their own faces on their custom characters in the game we were making, I brought up the question of what female players would do. (The characters in that game were traditionally male.) It was quickly decided that resources couldn't be spared to implement a female option. Last year the question came up of rebuilding the randomizer that populates the crowds. Again, though every character was being remodeled, it was decided that it was too much effort to make some of them female.
It's decisions like that which lead me to suspect that equalizing glass-ceiling type issues just isn't on the agenda. If there were hard proof, of course there could be lawsuits and stuff, but what makes it insidious is that there isn't any hard proof, it's a long series of small inconsequential decisions.
I've seen it firsthand. They are sometimes very sneaky about it, excusing themselves with "different work descriptions" and "different levels of experience", but also relying on the fact that here, at least, salaries are frequently individually negotiated and so comparing numbers is made difficult.
Equal pay for equal work doesn't sound complicated but unless your work description--and your work--is very basic, it's easy to dodge.
-
Then comes the higher level management. It is no small wonder that most of the people there are men. It is not to do with bias nor preference. It is simply that many women do not seek these positions in comparison to men OR once they are in these positions, drop out.
I disagree. While I'm sure that the numbers are nowhere near 50/50, there is a lifetime of cultural bias working against every level of a woman applying for or being selected in certain positions. I'm also fairly sure that while it's not always conscious, I do think that there is a preference. It is a sausage fest but not just in the way you describe.
As an example of the bias, consider the number of female Nobel Prize laureates in literature. I think the number of female published authors during the last century probably is roughly equal to the number of male published authors. It should then stand to reason that, if selected with some degree of objectivity, the number of female laureates during the same period should hint at similar proportions, provided that men aren't inherently better writers.
What do you suppose are the real numbers?
-
What could I say? I feel your questions to me are similarly loaded and you are looking to me to provide answers that would have me look sexist or to support an ideology of suppression. I do not feel that either is fair or true.
I didn't read her comments that way, tbh.
-
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
What if a third of them is true? A fourth? A fifth?
I don't doubt that there are both kinds, but I sincerely doubt you can tell the difference in each and every case.
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
"Countless stories?"
I thought we were discussing a site you linked to. ::) Hyperbole is not going to help your already deeply flawed logic.
-
Then comes the higher level management. It is no small wonder that most of the people there are men. It is not to do with bias nor preference. It is simply that many women do not seek these positions in comparison to men OR once they are in these positions, drop out.
I disagree. While I'm sure that the numbers are nowhere near 50/50, there is a lifetime of cultural bias working against every level of a woman applying for or being selected in certain positions. I'm also fairly sure that while it's not always conscious, I do think that there is a preference. It is a sausage fest but not just in the way you describe.
As an example of the bias, consider the number of female Nobel Prize laureates in literature. I think the number of female published authors during the last century probably is roughly equal to the number of male published authors. It should then stand to reason that, if selected with some degree of objectivity, the number of female laureates during the same period should hint at similar proportions, provided that men aren't inherently better writers.
What do you suppose are the real numbers?
What the real numbers of nobel laureate females in management? I have no idea? I would suspect you may be right and they may not be 50/50
In my department, I mentioned that the females and males are approximately 50/50 split. Top 10 in any given month are heavily weighted to the men to maybe 8/2 or 9/1 or even 10/0. Why is that? They get the same encouragement and training and are selling the same products?
Now we could jump to blaming the society and talking of cultural bias or we could try to justify the results with pseudo-psychology and talk of the mental make up of women OR we could say what I say "The reason that the men in my department achieve better sales is because they generally work harder, more competitively and have more riding on their results on a personal and subjective level. They will do overtime any time they can get it. They will try to one up the guy next to them.
The women generally don't. They usually have no admin and do not make the same volume of errors the guys make. They do not place themselves under anywhere near the same amount of pressure and rarely do they cajole the person near them about their sales or whatever.
Now I do not suspect that precisely the same environment in sales as in management with exactly the same fundamental drives nor that the ladies in my workplace are representative of the females in management in any organisation. If this were representative though to what maybe happening then the 9/1 kind of statistics do not quite seem so alarming or worrying or the fault of men.
It would seem it is choice based. People have a right to make whatever choices they wish but if they make choices it should be acknowledged that they are choices.
If women collectively do not want to become Engineers for example, or I.T. or construction (Yes there are a small few who do and no doubt do very well) then is it their choice not to choose? Can we be generous enough to grant that they had the same choice as the men who chose to take it up? Can we not put down their choices to eternally "victimly" out of their control?
-
Where I work, the people who do insane amounts of overtime (outside of the last few months of a project) are generally young singles and people who are unhappy in their marriages. It doesn't have much to do with who has the biggest family to support. There are systemic factors in place to prevent people who would have a vested interest in impressing their bosses with the amount of overtime they work from going nuts (interns, contractors). Work-life balance has been a major issue for, oh the last ten years or so. It's common knowledge that the amount of useful work you get done between hours 10 and 20 in a given day is negligible compared to what you could accomplish if you went home to get some sleep. It would be considered foolish at best and a hazard at worst to make salaries or bonuses dependent on number of hours worked.
None of it has to do with men being more competitive than women.
-
"Near-rape" counts as sexual assault in most jurisdictions.
That's all I could come up with without reading the entire thread.
-
Where I work, the people who do insane amounts of overtime (outside of the last few months of a project) are generally young singles and people who are unhappy in their marriages. It doesn't have much to do with who has the biggest family to support. There are systemic factors in place to prevent people who would have a vested interest in impressing their bosses with the amount of overtime they work from going nuts (interns, contractors). Work-life balance has been a major issue for, oh the last ten years or so. It's common knowledge that the amount of useful work you get done between hours 10 and 20 in a given day is negligible compared to what you could accomplish if you went home to get some sleep. It would be considered foolish at best and a hazard at worst to make salaries or bonuses dependent on number of hours worked.
None of it has to do with men being more competitive than women.
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make. If I decide that I will not go for harder sales and sacrifice commission, that is a choice, I ought not then complain about my average commissions being less. If I do not work weekends and trade off the overtime for a once sleep in, I can not complain about a smaller pay cheque. If I wind down and log out just before shift instead of going hard at it until the end of my shift and then finishing up admin for last half san hour I will get smaller pay.
Al of these are choices and if any one whether as a gender, race, age range or whatever chooses these things then it ought not be be used as a thing to try to make a point about the race, gender or age group or whatever. It ought to simply be, these individuals made these choices, regardless of their gender or age or whatever.
I think when they look at a similar result in a group of women compared to men or contrasting different age groups or different cultures or whatever, trying to find justifications rarely is necessary.
If I can not bring myself to do overtime, work to and past closing and work for every commission I pay a price for my choice it need not be indicative of some bigger problem.
-
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
C'mon, can't you see DFGL being behind some of those stories? That's the sort of behavior that causes problems. Not everyday guys going about their lives and flirting with girls. Nobody here's trying to lynch the whole gender.
I know no one -here- wants to kill all men. I was joking. ;)
C'mon, can't you see DFGL being behind some of those stories? That's the sort of behavior that causes problems. Not everyday guys going about their lives and flirting with girls.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say in this part, Py. Can you paraphrase?
-
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
What if a third of them is true? A fourth? A fifth?
I don't doubt that there are both kinds, but I sincerely doubt you can tell the difference in each and every case.
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
"Countless stories?"
I thought we were discussing a site you linked to. ::) Hyperbole is not going to help your already deeply flawed logic.
Is it deeply flawed because its hard to accept? :laugh:
-
C'mon, can't you see DFGL being behind some of those stories? That's the sort of behavior that causes problems. Not everyday guys going about their lives and flirting with girls.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say in this part, Py. Can you paraphrase?
You said if even half those stories were true, men were evil and dangerous savages. I pointed out one example of a man whose behavior could have been part of a story like that. As in, there are jackasses out there, not so far from home. It wasn't any more precise a point than that - but then your points haven't been too precise either.
-
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.
Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.
But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.
-
I agree it's not about merit. They're there because they have the "right" aggressive masculine personality to be there.
I'm willing to bet that almost every woman in such high position adopts a masculine sort of personality at work.
-
This shit is hateful, man. You can't tell me that even half of these stories are true, because that would mean that men in general actually are evil and dangerous savages, and that we really should be all locked up in cages and fed crackers and pieces of meat every now and then and just go OOOHH OHHH AAAHH AHHH *scratches ass*. And the very idea of that is ridiculous.
What if a third of them is true? A fourth? A fifth?
I don't doubt that there are both kinds, but I sincerely doubt you can tell the difference in each and every case.
Yes, even a fifth of the countless stories. If even a fifth of those are true, that means that all males should be purged or put in cages for the safety of superior women, Odeon.
:LOL:
"Countless stories?"
I thought we were discussing a site you linked to. ::) Hyperbole is not going to help your already deeply flawed logic.
Is it deeply flawed because its hard to accept? :laugh:
It's deeply flawed because it's wrong.
-
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.
Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.
But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.
I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.
I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.
Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.
Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.
There's no equality yet, IMHO.
-
I agree it's not about merit. They're there because they have the "right" aggressive masculine personality to be there.
I'm willing to bet that almost every woman in such high position adopts a masculine sort of personality at work.
From what I've seen it's exactly what happens. If it happens because there is no other way or because that's how the ruling elite currently does it, I don't know.
-
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.
Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.
But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.
I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.
I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.
Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.
Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.
There's no equality yet, IMHO.
It is a good way of dodging it. Part of the good reason it was a good way of dodging it, is that I was not talking about Noble laureates and I think it had little to do with management and the connection you wanted to ale I was not seeing. It was me saying "OK so we are talking about management or laureates?"
I personally would never be a politician. I chose not to go down this path. Were I to, I would imagine I have to completely change my values and morality. I would have to build a skill set I do not have and probably become someone that the "me" of today would not have the time of day for.
I could not imagine the concessions I would need to make to move into management. It would not work for me.
I could name many more things too that for a variety of reasons, I would not chose to pursue.
BUT it is worth noting that IF I chose not to and if i am not prepared to play the game, I can not then complain that I was never "let in".
Exams do not have to get easier to take, the students have to learn what to answer, how to answer, and in what format. If they chose not to or not to learn to conform within this, they suffer a consequence.
Sportsmen? Ditto.
People seeking out management opportunities? Yes.
What if the thought of going to schmooze with the big boss after work on a Friday is a bit off in your opinion? What if you place more merit on teamwork than individual competitiveness? What if the thought of monthly golf bores you stupid? What if you do not feel like knifing your fellow managers in the back to earn the favour or to rise on someone else's fall from grace? What if you do not see the workers as a faceless mass of automatons (rather than individuals)? What if you were not ego driven and selfish?
Well I would gauge this all, if not playing the game, at least limiting yourself in success attaining or rising in management. If you think that a woman or two having drinks with an almost exclusive male gathering, after work is going to be something that a lot of women would feel comfortable with doing on a regular basis, I think you may be right. BUT if that is the game and men in the same position would NOT feel uncomfortable, then making a case to change this to suit the party that may be uncomfortable is probably not reasonable.
If the effect of this is to weed out people that will not fit the game and only the most committed, men or women are left to play, then I do no pretend it is gender inequality nor do I suppose it is an inclusive way of doing things. It is simply making it very difficult for all but the people who are prepared to do or cope with all the bullshit to join the upper echelons of management. The elite.
Screw the Elite, I will not get there. But then I would not want a part of it anyhow.
-
The reason to talk about Nobel Laureates is because unlike the management, they actually do something worthwhile. If similar rules are operating there that operate among politicians, then there is a problem.
-
C'mon, can't you see DFGL being behind some of those stories? That's the sort of behavior that causes problems. Not everyday guys going about their lives and flirting with girls.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say in this part, Py. Can you paraphrase?
You said if even half those stories were true, men were evil and dangerous savages. I pointed out one example of a man whose behavior could have been part of a story like that. As in, there are jackasses out there, not so far from home. It wasn't any more precise a point than that - but then your points haven't been too precise either.
Because the human condition isn't precise, honey. That's why I also said lets throw out these borglike social justice movements and fight together, as people who love one another.
-
I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.
We disagree. I think the divisive bullshit is destructive, and that includes massive smear campaigns on the part of both genders against the other, lying about statistics, etc. I think that's extremely childish. It reminds me of when I was a little boy and some challenge came up, and some kid would always yell: "BOYS AGANST THE GIRLS" or "GIRLS AGAINST THE BOYS"
Its ridiculous, man. ;)
percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is.
Whether you want to believe it or not, that's what a lot of third wave feminists and "pro-feminists" would say now. Really.
You know what I think wouldn't be destructive? If we didn't have Feminists and MRAs anymore, and got along with each other like big boys and girls. I think that would be pretty productive, wouldn't it? :LOL:
-
Because the human condition isn't precise, honey. That's why I also said lets throw out these borglike social justice movements and fight together, as people who love one another.
Honey? :LOL:
You said you want friends that fight you. I guess that doesn't include debating, huh? I can be all benevolent and agreeing, but then what's left to say? You had a problem with a bunch of random people on the internet talking about getting almost assaulted. Maybe they're talking about stuff that's no big deal to someone a little older, but the one you quoted was a thirteen-year-old kid. Let them have their newness! You can build yourself up without tearing other people down.
-
Oh wait, this is the same guy who had his first time around that age, isn't it? And doesn't remember it properly? :orly:
-
Ouch.
-
Because the human condition isn't precise, honey. That's why I also said lets throw out these borglike social justice movements and fight together, as people who love one another.
Honey? :LOL:
You said you want friends that fight you. I guess that doesn't include debating, huh? I can be all benevolent and agreeing, but then what's left to say? You had a problem with a bunch of random people on the internet talking about getting almost assaulted. Maybe they're talking about stuff that's no big deal to someone a little older, but the one you quoted was a thirteen-year-old kid. Let them have their newness! You can build yourself up without tearing other people down.
No debate is fine. I like to fight. You know this, Py. I'm a rough man. :green:
And yes, many of those bs stories are told by children, and Tumblr feminism consists of mostly children also. Very true. I don't have to like to see kids beginning to emulate behavior that is one of the main things that causes war and has stopped us from already colonizing other planets and curing cancer and shit though. I'll be annoyed with them and bop them on the head for it.
I'm not really doing that to you guys here, just bringing it to your attention. But I did stimulate debate, didn't I? :laugh:
Oh wait, this is the same guy who had his first time around that age, isn't it? And doesn't remember it properly? :orly:
LOL. Nice.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiwkkV0KkcFS03hb-CG6Cqo--51RNOx9fpNX6GifjtK8UBEhnH)
-
Tumbler feminism? You waste your time with Tumblr feminism? :zombiefuck:
And yes, it stimulated a good debate.
-
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.
Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.
But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.
I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.
I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.
Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.
Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.
There's no equality yet, IMHO.
It is a good way of dodging it. Part of the good reason it was a good way of dodging it, is that I was not talking about Noble laureates and I think it had little to do with management and the connection you wanted to ale I was not seeing. It was me saying "OK so we are talking about management or laureates?"
I personally would never be a politician. I chose not to go down this path. Were I to, I would imagine I have to completely change my values and morality. I would have to build a skill set I do not have and probably become someone that the "me" of today would not have the time of day for.
I could not imagine the concessions I would need to make to move into management. It would not work for me.
I could name many more things too that for a variety of reasons, I would not chose to pursue.
BUT it is worth noting that IF I chose not to and if i am not prepared to play the game, I can not then complain that I was never "let in".
Exams do not have to get easier to take, the students have to learn what to answer, how to answer, and in what format. If they chose not to or not to learn to conform within this, they suffer a consequence.
Sportsmen? Ditto.
People seeking out management opportunities? Yes.
What if the thought of going to schmooze with the big boss after work on a Friday is a bit off in your opinion? What if you place more merit on teamwork than individual competitiveness? What if the thought of monthly golf bores you stupid? What if you do not feel like knifing your fellow managers in the back to earn the favour or to rise on someone else's fall from grace? What if you do not see the workers as a faceless mass of automatons (rather than individuals)? What if you were not ego driven and selfish?
Well I would gauge this all, if not playing the game, at least limiting yourself in success attaining or rising in management. If you think that a woman or two having drinks with an almost exclusive male gathering, after work is going to be something that a lot of women would feel comfortable with doing on a regular basis, I think you may be right. BUT if that is the game and men in the same position would NOT feel uncomfortable, then making a case to change this to suit the party that may be uncomfortable is probably not reasonable.
If the effect of this is to weed out people that will not fit the game and only the most committed, men or women are left to play, then I do no pretend it is gender inequality nor do I suppose it is an inclusive way of doing things. It is simply making it very difficult for all but the people who are prepared to do or cope with all the bullshit to join the upper echelons of management. The elite.
Screw the Elite, I will not get there. But then I would not want a part of it anyhow.
Here's the thing, mate, and correct me if I'm off base here. You build up your argument from a) your workplace, and b) an assumption that the current male-defined hierarchy is the only possible one, the way it must be.
Now, while b) is certainly true now, I very much doubt it is the only possible way. It is the result of thousands of years of biology, psychology, cultural heritage and the bias that will result. And probably more. Some of it was conscious and some of it wasn't. Isn't.
It *might* be evolution at work, too, but that I doubt because it seems counter-productive and not what nature would do if given time.
Does top-level management entail weekly (not monthly; we are talking top level here) golf, schmoozing with the big boss on Fridays, etc? Again, now it might. I very much doubt it must.
And it shouldn't. We'll miss out if so. I am not saying that trading places (or a 50/50 split in management or whatever) is better, I'm saying it's different, and because we are talking about 50% of the population, equality is out of the question if it is not acknowledged and tested. And accepted.
Is equality better? Almost certainly because again, we are talking about 50% of the population, and unless we want to design some bizarre kind of gender apartheid, we need a society that works for all of the population, not just one half of it.
-
Tumbler feminism? You waste your time with Tumblr feminism? :zombiefuck:
And yes, it stimulated a good debate.
What's wrong with their brand of feminism?
-
Tumblr is more conducive to scratching people's eyes out than intelligent discourse.
-
Tumblr is more conducive to scratching people's eyes out than intelligent discourse.
Indeed. They're awful people. Or maybe they're still in diapers. I'm not sure which.
-
Any of this may be true but it is not the point I was trying to make.
The point was down to choices. It is not honest and objective to overlook the choices people make.
Your point seems to boil down to, if people decide not to play the game then they deserve the little they get.
But you're not looking beyond the rules of your immediate workspace. You and your coworkers work for commission, which is dependent on the number of sales made. Fine. But my argument was originally about the old boys' club in upper management, and not all of its members are there because of unusual competence or dedication. They're there because their friends are there, and like hired like.
I've witnessed the old boys' club firsthand, and I'm a male. It is a reality.
I'm not saying it's all because of a conscious design, OR a cultural bias, OR male chauvinism. I'm saying that regardless of the reason(s), it's there and unless it is recognised, it will not change.
Rage's reasoning re the almost-raped forum is, while ridiculous, an example of the bias at work. Is his attitude a conscious one? I very much doubt it, but his way of attacking the problem is to belittle it, to ignore it, to destroy a more useful discussion: If <insert a number here> percent of the stories are true, then ALL men should be locked in or whatever his ridiculous suggestion is. It's a non-argument, it's just destructive.
Nobel laureates in management is a nice way of dodging what I was saying, btw, Sir Les. I don't know how this works at your workplace, and I don't pretend to. I think you may well have a point, in your context, but as for equality, your workplace does not tell the whole story.
There's no equality yet, IMHO.
It is a good way of dodging it. Part of the good reason it was a good way of dodging it, is that I was not talking about Noble laureates and I think it had little to do with management and the connection you wanted to ale I was not seeing. It was me saying "OK so we are talking about management or laureates?"
I personally would never be a politician. I chose not to go down this path. Were I to, I would imagine I have to completely change my values and morality. I would have to build a skill set I do not have and probably become someone that the "me" of today would not have the time of day for.
I could not imagine the concessions I would need to make to move into management. It would not work for me.
I could name many more things too that for a variety of reasons, I would not chose to pursue.
BUT it is worth noting that IF I chose not to and if i am not prepared to play the game, I can not then complain that I was never "let in".
Exams do not have to get easier to take, the students have to learn what to answer, how to answer, and in what format. If they chose not to or not to learn to conform within this, they suffer a consequence.
Sportsmen? Ditto.
People seeking out management opportunities? Yes.
What if the thought of going to schmooze with the big boss after work on a Friday is a bit off in your opinion? What if you place more merit on teamwork than individual competitiveness? What if the thought of monthly golf bores you stupid? What if you do not feel like knifing your fellow managers in the back to earn the favour or to rise on someone else's fall from grace? What if you do not see the workers as a faceless mass of automatons (rather than individuals)? What if you were not ego driven and selfish?
Well I would gauge this all, if not playing the game, at least limiting yourself in success attaining or rising in management. If you think that a woman or two having drinks with an almost exclusive male gathering, after work is going to be something that a lot of women would feel comfortable with doing on a regular basis, I think you may be right. BUT if that is the game and men in the same position would NOT feel uncomfortable, then making a case to change this to suit the party that may be uncomfortable is probably not reasonable.
If the effect of this is to weed out people that will not fit the game and only the most committed, men or women are left to play, then I do no pretend it is gender inequality nor do I suppose it is an inclusive way of doing things. It is simply making it very difficult for all but the people who are prepared to do or cope with all the bullshit to join the upper echelons of management. The elite.
Screw the Elite, I will not get there. But then I would not want a part of it anyhow.
Here's the thing, mate, and correct me if I'm off base here. You build up your argument from a) your workplace, and b) an assumption that the current male-defined hierarchy is the only possible one, the way it must be.
Now, while b) is certainly true now, I very much doubt it is the only possible way. It is the result of thousands of years of biology, psychology, cultural heritage and the bias that will result. And probably more. Some of it was conscious and some of it wasn't. Isn't.
It *might* be evolution at work, too, but that I doubt because it seems counter-productive and not what nature would do if given time.
Does top-level management entail weekly (not monthly; we are talking top level here) golf, schmoozing with the big boss on Fridays, etc? Again, now it might. I very much doubt it must.
And it shouldn't. We'll miss out if so. I am not saying that trading places (or a 50/50 split in management or whatever) is better, I'm saying it's different, and because we are talking about 50% of the population, equality is out of the question if it is not acknowledged and tested. And accepted.
Is equality better? Almost certainly because again, we are talking about 50% of the population, and unless we want to design some bizarre kind of gender apartheid, we need a society that works for all of the population, not just one half of it.
Not quite. I am saying that the "inequalities" so readily embraced are often not actual "inequalities of gender" at all. It is very easy to agree on these things, without thinking through, especially if it "feels" right.
Things like women not having as much superannuation on average, yet when it is asked why, it normally comes down to a choice of jobs they have sought employment in OR having spent long periods of time out of the workplace.
Is this inequality of genders or is this a lot of women with the same choices as men, deciding (or choosing) to make choices that may sacrifice the benefit of superannuation.
Some women choose to stay home and be at home Mums. No problem with this. It is a choice, BUT then to use this in figure to make some ill-thought out subjective proclamation about men earning more than women or whatever, is a little bit more than a little dishonest.
Now to counter this the word "Patriarchy" is often throne around and also sometimes efforts to talk about innate bias or subconscious or societal driven expectations or imperatives. I think this is mostly just pseudo-psychology and intellectual dishonesty.
If a woman wants to be an X and has the skill set, determination and whatever, I do not believe that she can not do it, in today's society....now.
If a woman doing this just do so with some sacrifices and by an amount of game playing, then so be it. Men do too.
If a man in order to get on has to put his social life on the back burner, work his guts out (in demanding work), ingratiate himself with the boss, work overtime and weekends. Be available to attend work functions when need requires and so on. Until he has successfully made it (if he has not burned out in the meantime) then I say he has deserved it.
If a woman does the same at expense of her life and so on too. Then she too will no doubt have the same opportunities as the bloke.
I remember when my first child was born. One of the mothers that attended the hospital with us, Pam, was 40 years old and first time mother. She was a Partner at a Law Firm. In the time where many of her peers were dropping out of wrk or downgrading their positions to less demanding or part time work, she worked her way up. Finally when she was made a partner, she looked to become a mother. She was financially well off and able to dictate her life from here on......but she was worried she had (unlike her peers) left her run too late to have kids.
Now you may say that it is unfair that someone like Pam ought to feel she had no option but to either choose to postpone kids or risk rising through the ranks in her late 20's and 30's. I would say that regardless, that does not mean it is gender inequality because men are not really considered in terms of time off for their children.
I remember another girl working who decided after a few monte to pull the pin and go home and look after the baby. She one time in tears said "You don't know how I feel each day knowing that I have to work while he is so little and not able to stay at home with him and see him during the day". I told her I did because I felt that with both my children at that age and no doubt her husband did too, just I did not get a choice and neither would he. She looked at me like i simply did not get it.
As I say gender difference is not necessarily inequality of gender or bias or anything else. Choices often come with sacrifices. Experiences the effect of choices and the sting of the sacrifices made is not unfair. If you choice x to avoid y and z is an effect of not doing y, then you do not say I should get the benefits of y whilst doing x and without the disadvantage of z because z is unfair. Life does not work like that and to say people that do y are being favoured is dishonest.
-
Not quite. I am saying that the "inequalities" so readily embraced are often not actual "inequalities of gender" at all. It is very easy to agree on these things, without thinking through, especially if it "feels" right.
Ah, but the "inequality" I refer to is simply an imbalance. I think you'll agree that the world, career-wise as far as climbing the work ladder goes, is better suited for males, simply because they will not give birth or support an infant through the first few months or years at home. This is a basic imbalance when related to how society works. Career-wise.
Now, you may say that it's a choice, but I'd suggest that it really isn't. It is a biological drive with both sexes. Am I screaming "patriarchy" or "male chauvinism" or "sausage fest"? No, I'm simply stating the facts.
Men and women are different but the differences are not all accounted for, creating inequalities and, yes, injustices.
Not saying that this was all by conscious design, simply claiming that it is what it is.
There are all kinds of resulting injustices from this basic natural order of things, that child birth thing, and they come in many shapes and forms. A very obvious one is, I think, the voting rights of women. Democracy may have been around for a while but equal voting rights haven't, just to offer a simple example.
Things like women not having as much superannuation on average, yet when it is asked why, it normally comes down to a choice of jobs they have sought employment in OR having spent long periods of time out of the workplace.
This is what the setup looks like, yes. Does it have to be like that? No.
Is this inequality of genders or is this a lot of women with the same choices as men, deciding (or choosing) to make choices that may sacrifice the benefit of superannuation.
On the surface, this is a choice, but I would argue that it really isn't. It is an imbalance that is yet to be corrected.
Think about it: the only way a female can make a proper career with the current setup is to waive her offspring, and to convince her spouse that he won't have any. The drive to reproduce is strong with both sexes but the consequences for doing so are very different for them.
I think career ambitions also stem from a basic human drive, but the drive to reproduce wins out. It's how we survive as a race.
This basic difference, however, is not accounted for. It's not built into the system yet, but I think it should because I firmly believe we'd all benefit. I don't know how, though.
Men and women are not the same, but they should have equal rights.
Some women choose to stay home and be at home Mums. No problem with this. It is a choice, BUT then to use this in figure to make some ill-thought out subjective proclamation about men earning more than women or whatever, is a little bit more than a little dishonest.
Now to counter this the word "Patriarchy" is often throne around and also sometimes efforts to talk about innate bias or subconscious or societal driven expectations or imperatives. I think this is mostly just pseudo-psychology and intellectual dishonesty.
And I agree. It's a reaction, just as militant feminism in general is, and while not the way to bring about a change, the fact that it happens is important because, to me, it says that something just isn't right.
If a woman wants to be an X and has the skill set, determination and whatever, I do not believe that she can not do it, in today's society....now.
If a woman doing this just do so with some sacrifices and by an amount of game playing, then so be it. Men do too.
If a man in order to get on has to put his social life on the back burner, work his guts out (in demanding work), ingratiate himself with the boss, work overtime and weekends. Be available to attend work functions when need requires and so on. Until he has successfully made it (if he has not burned out in the meantime) then I say he has deserved it.
And I say this almost never works. It may bring a promotion but I believe studies show that overtime does not equal efficiency or better results. That particular system is flawed for entirely different reasons.
If a woman does the same at expense of her life and so on too. Then she too will no doubt have the same opportunities as the bloke.
Burn out at the expense of everything else?
I think this is something that should be changed, for everyone's sake.
I remember when my first child was born. One of the mothers that attended the hospital with us, Pam, was 40 years old and first time mother. She was a Partner at a Law Firm. In the time where many of her peers were dropping out of wrk or downgrading their positions to less demanding or part time work, she worked her way up. Finally when she was made a partner, she looked to become a mother. She was financially well off and able to dictate her life from here on......but she was worried she had (unlike her peers) left her run too late to have kids.
Now you may say that it is unfair that someone like Pam ought to feel she had no option but to either choose to postpone kids or risk rising through the ranks in her late 20's and 30's. I would say that regardless, that does not mean it is gender inequality because men are not really considered in terms of time off for their children.
But it is an inequality, an imbalance. It is a simple fact. See my initial reasoning above.
If Pa's only way to make a career is to wait with all that baby nonsense until she's already a partner, at 40, it will hurt both her, her spouse, and the poor kid. And thus, society.
There should be a better way.
I remember another girl working who decided after a few monte to pull the pin and go home and look after the baby. She one time in tears said "You don't know how I feel each day knowing that I have to work while he is so little and not able to stay at home with him and see him during the day". I told her I did because I felt that with both my children at that age and no doubt her husband did too, just I did not get a choice and neither would he. She looked at me like i simply did not get it.
As I say gender difference is not necessarily inequality of gender or bias or anything else. Choices often come with sacrifices. Experiences the effect of choices and the sting of the sacrifices made is not unfair. If you choice x to avoid y and z is an effect of not doing y, then you do not say I should get the benefits of y whilst doing x and without the disadvantage of z because z is unfair. Life does not work like that and to say people that do y are being favoured is dishonest.
To not account for basic human biology when building a society will create imbalances. Those imbalances are likely to boost whatever bias there was. It is a vicious circle. And again, I'm not saying it's all conscious or a sausage fest or anything, I'm simply saying it is happening.
To shrug it all off by saying that life just doesn't work like that is counter-productive. It won't help, but it might well hurt.
-
Odeon, thanks for the reply.
I think you are not correct and I will tell you why. You have stated about biology and imbalance and so on as though they slot very neatly into the equation and that they cover each of these issues. It is not this simply or clean cut.
A women gets pregnant and has a baby. How much time is she out of the workplace for? How long is a piece of string?
If we looked sat this like it was NOT a childbirth and treated it like a major operation that a man may take. What is the "necessary time to take out? Couple of weeks? Some women do too.
If it was imperative that she was to rerun to work asap, then I have no doubt this "could" be done.
Maybe her partner would have to stay at home, may she would have a relative, friend or day care look after the infant. Does happen. Maybe they take annual leave.
IF this were the case it would not in any meaningful way impact on her job nor present "imbalance" nor would it affect superannuation nor job prospects.
So saying "biology" as a coverall does not really address things, nor does stating imbalance. In fact I would presume the manager with extended time off for health issues would be in a far wore position in terms of getting on in the office, than the manager who gave birth to a baby.
Whilst it does certainly happen, it is a pretty tough road. No it is a sacrifice and a choice. Many refuse to make. If her and her partner (presuming there is one) want the baby to spend a couple of years being raised not be grandmothers or strangers, then it means that there is another sacrifice. That is, the financial sacrifice and employment sacrifice option. Now that too is a choice. Mostly if it is a man and woman situation and they thing that at best, they could handle a single income household, it is normally put on the man to bring in the bacon. That is another choice. Need not necessarily be the man.
So if a woman decides to have a baby. If she decides that once the baby is born she will take a lot of time out of the workplace. If she decides that she will be the part of the couple that stays at home, it sounds to me that a lot of choices have been made and it is made rationally and she must be obliged to the same extent as her partner who has been obliged as the breadwinner for a family of three. If she does not like the choices or the consequence of said choices, then she ought to make different ones.
Now you may argue that it is unfair. You may say "Well the mother should get to spend a few years with the kids growing up because they are little and need their parent." I would say "In that case then you make a great case for both parents dropping out and spending time raising them.
Would not go so well with a "imbalance" argument but I think it is a fair comment.
If the man is the one that goes back to work and has a few days off and gets back into it and the female does not, then unless there is a serious health issue to factor, I say the imbalance of the man to women is being looked at incorrectly.
-
In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.
-
In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.
Is that really something to do with male domination, or just shitty logistics?
-
I think it's anti-male-domination. Like a progressive move. Isn't it harder in other places to get equal paternity leave?
-
Odeon, thanks for the reply.
Why, thank *you*. It's always fun arguing with you.
I think you are not correct and I will tell you why. You have stated about biology and imbalance and so on as though they slot very neatly into the equation and that they cover each of these issues. It is not this simply or clean cut.
On this we agree. It is not that clean-cut. Biology is an important cause but not the only one. Biology, IMHO, will go a long way towards explaining why it all came about but it's far from the only reason.
I hope I didn't imply that it was.
A women gets pregnant and has a baby. How much time is she out of the workplace for?
These days? Not that much. For centuries, though, she did not have a workplace other than home, so maternity leave wasn't an option.
How long is a piece of string?
Now, that depends on what it's used for.
If we looked sat this like it was NOT a childbirth and treated it like a major operation that a man may take. What is the "necessary time to take out? Couple of weeks? Some women do too.
But it's not the same. It can be very much like a major operation and one that a man may take, but the difference is that it is not a disease, it is the result of a basic biological drive that exists in both sexes. So unless you wish to argue that you have a few hundred thousand years of evolution pushing at the man and woman both for the man to take that operation and a couple of weeks off as a result, and with lasting effects for them both, your basic argument is flawed.
Now, if that major operation had been an undeniable fact for the last few thousand years--all of the recorded history, in fact, and more--and if it had caused the men to have stayed back in the cave while them men went out hunting, I might indulge you with this, but it just isn't so.
If it was imperative that she was to rerun to work asap, then I have no doubt this "could" be done.
It is done. More in the so-called Western world than elsewhere, probably, but it has only been possible in recent times.
Maybe her partner would have to stay at home, may she would have a relative, friend or day care look after the infant. Does happen. Maybe they take annual leave.
But then again, maybe not, because an annual leave isn't always an option and quite a few workplaces here, at least, will use that opportunity to, um, shall we say, rearrange the workplace.
But sure, it does happen. Your point?
IF this were the case it would not in any meaningful way impact on her job nor present "imbalance" nor would it affect superannuation nor job prospects.
But it does. Here at least. It's not the same everywhere, but a parental leave tends to affect the female more than the male. It has been the subject of a number of heated discussions and, in some cases, lawsuits. It happens.
There are many reasons to why it happens, and I think that basic biological fact has helped contribute to it.
So saying "biology" as a coverall does not really address things, nor does stating imbalance. In fact I would presume the manager with extended time off for health issues would be in a far wore position in terms of getting on in the office, than the manager who gave birth to a baby.
Actually, the manager will be in a far better position, generally speaking, but yes, health issues, especially prolonged ones, tend to harm career prospects. I can think of several such cases here.
But it's not a counter-argument, is it? It is a different issue and worth discussing separately. The basic issue at hand is NOT a health issue.
Whilst it does certainly happen, it is a pretty tough road. No it is a sacrifice and a choice. Many refuse to make. If her and her partner (presuming there is one) want the baby to spend a couple of years being raised not be grandmothers or strangers, then it means that there is another sacrifice. That is, the financial sacrifice and employment sacrifice option. Now that too is a choice. Mostly if it is a man and woman situation and they thing that at best, they could handle a single income household, it is normally put on the man to bring in the bacon. That is another choice. Need not necessarily be the man.
So if a woman decides to have a baby. If she decides that once the baby is born she will take a lot of time out of the workplace. If she decides that she will be the part of the couple that stays at home, it sounds to me that a lot of choices have been made and it is made rationally and she must be obliged to the same extent as her partner who has been obliged as the breadwinner for a family of three. If she does not like the choices or the consequence of said choices, then she ought to make different ones.
If the consequences were the same for both parties, I might agree with you, but they aren't. They should be.
Now you may argue that it is unfair. You may say "Well the mother should get to spend a few years with the kids growing up because they are little and need their parent." I would say "In that case then you make a great case for both parents dropping out and spending time raising them.
I'm not arguing unfairness, I'm arguing basic biological differences and imbalances because of those differences that shouldn't have to be there. I'm not sure why you avoid that part of the discussion. I think both parents should be allowed to spend more time with their offspring without ill effects in the workplace.
Would not go so well with a "imbalance" argument but I think it is a fair comment.
If the man is the one that goes back to work and has a few days off and gets back into it and the female does not, then unless there is a serious health issue to factor, I say the imbalance of the man to women is being looked at incorrectly.
And it is. But we are repeating ourselves and I don't know if I'm expressing myself poorly.
I'll make another attempt at this later. Right now I have to head for work.
-
It seems to me that we are not so much arguing the same points but rather miscuing. I certain think that your viewpoint from what I understand is slightly opposed to mine but I feel we are slightly mussing each other in the exchange.
I will start with these mentions of "recent times".
In days of old, women did not work, men did. In fact men had to. The reason was not about inequality. Nor was it to "dominate" women.
The reason WAS biological. Women, simply were too valuable to risk. The chances of surviving childbirth were not crash hot. Those that did, wanted to have a few children survive them to help look after them in old age and reach childbearing age themselves. Therefore child after child was born and IF they survived this ordeal, they would have spent most of their adult life by the time they were unable to bear children, either nursing or pregnant. In the meantime"someone" had to provide for the family. Men needed to support this and so they were given the right to work BECAUSE they had the obligation to carry out such duties. The women did not have the obligation to provide for the family and so did not have the rights associated with the obligation.
It was only "recent times" that infant mortality and death in child birthing has substantially reduced.
To keep bring up "only in recent times" in ways to suggest that the women were "held back" or "disadvantaged" is simply not true representation. It is not at all to say that once these things "stabilised" that men eagerly embraced women's wish to be workers in society. No this was a complete culture shift. Right up there with the shift from Stone Age to Bronze Age or Bronze to Iron Age.
Considering the significant change, how long did it take for society to endorse women's right to work? 500 years? 200? 100? 50?
The other thing is of course, men as the provider is still a societal pressure. If men and women split, invariably it is the Father forced to support any of his children and often the new partner too. (Often with Government support by way of pensions) So he keeps the obligation of the provider.
Is the woman in joining into this once male domain similarly obligated to provide for the family? Perhaps instead of the onus falling on her, the government and the ex partner and perhaps any new partner is obligated instead.
By contrast, is the man now given more credibility in the old female domain of nurturing and growing up the kids?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255 (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255)
Believe me, when we get to the stage where we are THAT far down the rabbit hole that we are saying "Where are all the male role models?" we REALLY have to take a look at the system and ask whether or not the Fathers are all bad or whether the mothers find it all too easy to minimise, marginalise and supplant the Father's role in nurturing an raising children in their way (which is absolutely not necessarily the Mother's way) and whether society debases the Masculine and the Father and uses them to be obligated for cash towards children but with unequal access and rights as a parent? Certainly looks that way. In fact looks like a verifiable imbalance.
The fact of the matter is that men do not go through childbirth (no hear me out), so I can not directly compare women giving birth to men given birth. It is not a given that IF we can not compare this exactly condition/experience/situation to a man's, that any conclusions we can draw from looking at time off from work is horribly flawed and not cogent.
I am not trying to directly compare a prolonged illness or operation or such with childbirth and give merits as to the ways they directly compare as physical experiences. My attempt to mention this was also not a moral comparison or a matter of looking at the way that such conditions or experience may affect life.
It was simply to say, if you are on top of your game in the workplace and know your job inside out and the procedures, policies and processes and the who's who and what's what, a small break from work will not hurt you ably in this regard. You may read a few emails have a quick fill in, and ask a few questions. You are not quite up to date but close enough. Out of the loop for a year? Now this would be akin to being employed to a new firm in the same field almost. You MAY be able to get on top of things of course but it will not be easy AND the people who you left a year ago have an extra year's earth of knowledge over you and extra year of perhaps exposing themselves to a vacuum left by your departure.
Now If a man was to take two weeks off or even four weeks off with annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, or whatever this i negligible effect or career or his saved super or his understanding of the company as stated above.
If woman was to tae this kind of time off to have a child...same deal.
If a man was to be long term sick and was introduced back into the workplace he would be in foreign territory for al the reasons I have just shown.
Ditto if a lady returns to work a year after having given birth.
The difficulties are not unnatural or unfair or needing to be adjusted. Whether it should be up to one parent to stay hime or both or neither, that is not unfair choice or disadvantaged to either sex. It is certainly a decision that ought to be made before having children. One percent working to provide for children is no less fair on them than what it is to the parent staying at home, regardless of gender.
I am hoping that these comments can get us actually to duel over viewpoints. Again I think we are miscuing.
-
I think it's anti-male-domination. Like a progressive move. Isn't it harder in other places to get equal paternity leave?
No no I mean unequal leave for the birth of a baby in other workplaces. (Lol sorry. Forgot you couldn't read my mind, there.) Would that be a product of a conscious effort on part of modern males to dominate females, or just a carryover from a dead set of values dreamed up by doddering old fools which still exists because of laziness on part of modern folk?
Itt: Shitty Logistics, Lazy leadership.
-
*Bump*
-
theres a niche for everyone on teh interdawebz. Almost-raped is so-and-so, meh, lame, sure, idiotic. Neo nazi groups disguised as homework help for children - a tad bit worse, if you ask me.
But yeah, lame.
-
theres a niche for everyone on teh interdawebz. Almost-raped is so-and-so, meh, lame, sure, idiotic. Neo nazi groups disguised as homework help for children - a tad bit worse, if you ask me.
But yeah, lame.
You better watch your mouth or I'll almost rape you. :zoinks:
-
*Bump*
Sorry, mate, I've been otherwise occupied.
-
It seems to me that we are not so much arguing the same points but rather miscuing. I certain think that your viewpoint from what I understand is slightly opposed to mine but I feel we are slightly mussing each other in the exchange.
We're what?
Maybe I'm being dull but I don't understand what you're saying here.
I will start with these mentions of "recent times".
In days of old, women did not work, men did. In fact men had to. The reason was not about inequality. Nor was it to "dominate" women.
The reason WAS biological. Women, simply were too valuable to risk.
What do you base this on?
I'd argue that part of the reason was, and still is, biological. It's just the way this has all been set up. It's not fair, it's not unfair, it just is.
The consequences then were that yes, most women did not work outside the home. It was a consequence of the setup and not necessarily unfair. It just was.
But even though it's no longer an inevitable consequence and hasn't been for quite some time, it still lingers.
The chances of surviving childbirth were not crash hot. Those that did, wanted to have a few children survive them to help look after them in old age and reach childbearing age themselves. Therefore child after child was born and IF they survived this ordeal, they would have spent most of their adult life by the time they were unable to bear children, either nursing or pregnant. In the meantime"someone" had to provide for the family. Men needed to support this and so they were given the right to work BECAUSE they had the obligation to carry out such duties. The women did not have the obligation to provide for the family and so did not have the rights associated with the obligation.
What are these rights? Please define them.
I'm sure this was the consequence, "back then", but not all of it was necessary. Where did it say that the division of labour had to be like that for life?
I think nowhere. It happened because the initial division of labour, defined by childbirth, was like that, and perhaps the first few years, especially with a couple of babies being produced every few years.
Society would stick to that definition long after the last sibling had been born, however. Would you like me to list a few examples? History is full of them.
It was only "recent times" that infant mortality and death in child birthing has substantially reduced.
Yes, but the division of labour has lagged behind long after that.
To keep bring up "only in recent times" in ways to suggest that the women were "held back" or "disadvantaged" is simply not true representation. It is not at all to say that once these things "stabilised" that men eagerly embraced women's wish to be workers in society. No this was a complete culture shift. Right up there with the shift from Stone Age to Bronze Age or Bronze to Iron Age.
I disagree. I'm saying that there was no reason to wait until "recent times". I'm saying that there have been all kinds of reasons to cling to this setup even though it hasn't been a necessity for most societies in a long, long time.
Considering the significant change, how long did it take for society to endorse women's right to work? 500 years? 200? 100? 50?
You are the one to suggest that this significant change happened in "recent times" so you tell me.
Did you know that women were first allowed to vote in Lichtenstein only in the 1980s? Do you think they had reason to wait for that long? Do you think they had reason to wait, at all?
The other thing is of course, men as the provider is still a societal pressure. If men and women split, invariably it is the Father forced to support any of his children and often the new partner too. (Often with Government support by way of pensions) So he keeps the obligation of the provider.
Is the woman in joining into this once male domain similarly obligated to provide for the family? Perhaps instead of the onus falling on her, the government and the ex partner and perhaps any new partner is obligated instead.
By contrast, is the man now given more credibility in the old female domain of nurturing and growing up the kids?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255 (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255)
Believe me, when we get to the stage where we are THAT far down the rabbit hole that we are saying "Where are all the male role models?" we REALLY have to take a look at the system and ask whether or not the Fathers are all bad or whether the mothers find it all too easy to minimise, marginalise and supplant the Father's role in nurturing an raising children in their way (which is absolutely not necessarily the Mother's way) and whether society debases the Masculine and the Father and uses them to be obligated for cash towards children but with unequal access and rights as a parent? Certainly looks that way. In fact looks like a verifiable imbalance.
It is an imbalance, sure. I'm not arguing that "equal rights" should tip the scale the other way. I know there are plenty of feminists saying pretty much that, that this is somehow the punishment for past injustices.
It's as fucked up as the imbalance I have been talking about. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
But I do think it is a reaction, a result of the former setup. Some kind of weird cultural inertia at work. And I do think it is interesting that it is frequently brought up whenever the rights of women in society are being discussed.
Why argue against one injustice by bringing up another?
The fact of the matter is that men do not go through childbirth (no hear me out), so I can not directly compare women giving birth to men given birth. It is not a given that IF we can not compare this exactly condition/experience/situation to a man's, that any conclusions we can draw from looking at time off from work is horribly flawed and not cogent.
I am not trying to directly compare a prolonged illness or operation or such with childbirth and give merits as to the ways they directly compare as physical experiences. My attempt to mention this was also not a moral comparison or a matter of looking at the way that such conditions or experience may affect life.
It was simply to say, if you are on top of your game in the workplace and know your job inside out and the procedures, policies and processes and the who's who and what's what, a small break from work will not hurt you ably in this regard. You may read a few emails have a quick fill in, and ask a few questions. You are not quite up to date but close enough. Out of the loop for a year? Now this would be akin to being employed to a new firm in the same field almost. You MAY be able to get on top of things of course but it will not be easy AND the people who you left a year ago have an extra year's earth of knowledge over you and extra year of perhaps exposing themselves to a vacuum left by your departure.
So why make it harder for them? Why not HELP them instead?
Now If a man was to take two weeks off or even four weeks off with annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, or whatever this i negligible effect or career or his saved super or his understanding of the company as stated above.
If woman was to tae this kind of time off to have a child...same deal.
If a man was to be long term sick and was introduced back into the workplace he would be in foreign territory for al the reasons I have just shown.
Ditto if a lady returns to work a year after having given birth.
The difficulties are not unnatural or unfair or needing to be adjusted. Whether it should be up to one parent to stay hime or both or neither, that is not unfair choice or disadvantaged to either sex. It is certainly a decision that ought to be made before having children. One percent working to provide for children is no less fair on them than what it is to the parent staying at home, regardless of gender.
I am hoping that these comments can get us actually to duel over viewpoints. Again I think we are miscuing.
Hmm. I think we already are, but correct me if I'm wrong.
But, just because it's the kind of guy I am:
Woman Is the Nigger of the World / John Lennon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k#)
Bloody good song.
-
*Bump*
Sorry, mate, I've been otherwise occupied.
Hey that is Ok. You had said you would get back to it later that night and you hadn't. I honestly thought that you had forgotten and worse still I was kind of generally disagreeing with you sort of. I found that frustrating being it meant I either was misreading what yo were saying and agreed with you but had it slightly wrong or that I disagreed with you but had not quite got the gist of some of your points.
Now with you responding I know two things.
I know I do disagree with you. You are not completely my polar opposite or anything and indeed I dare say we may have some common ground, but there is difference there and I enjoy arguing with you too.
(Between you and me - and now the board - I have been dying for a similar opportunity to argue with Rage too for the same reasons)
The second thing I know is that it is only just Christmas Eve and I am absolutely smashed. So.....if my syntax is worse than normal, my spelling questionable, my novella answers become novels, please do not be too hard on me. ;)
-
It seems to me that we are not so much arguing the same points but rather miscuing. I certain think that your viewpoint from what I understand is slightly opposed to mine but I feel we are slightly mussing each other in the exchange.
We're what?
Maybe I'm being dull but I don't understand what you're saying here.
Odeon, Its ok. As mentioned above. I felt as though we were not really going head to head as it were. I inferred you were at least slightly opposed to my opinions but I do not think either of us had really contested much or engaged vehemently, on any position strongly. Felt like we were either missing each other or feeling out. I do not like that. It made me feel like made I was misreading something and setting myself up for an embarrassment, where at some point you or someone else would say "What the hell are you on about? I/he was not saying that at all"
For what it worth, I don't think you are dull by a long chalk but I think this could turn out to be a knock down drag out fight....or at least another argument like our callout. The fact that you are not "dull" makes it worth having
I will start with these mentions of "recent times".
In days of old, women did not work, men did. In fact men had to. The reason was not about inequality. Nor was it to "dominate" women.
The reason WAS biological. Women, simply were too valuable to risk.
What do you base this on?
I'd argue that part of the reason was, and still is, biological. It's just the way this has all been set up. It's not fair, it's not unfair, it just is.
The consequences then were that yes, most women did not work outside the home. It was a consequence of the setup and not necessarily unfair. It just was.
But even though it's no longer an inevitable consequence and hasn't been for quite some time, it still lingers.
Indeed there is an inescapable biological/evolutionary/primal/instinctual/hormonal pull to this.
BUT we have to also face facts that as much as man and woman may be lead by emotions and hormones and everything else, we are thinking creatures too. This is why crimes of passion and PMT and "heat of the moment" type acts only go so far in law courts. We know as a society that there is genuine chemical predispositions exist but that the thing that separates us from even the next most highly evolved mammals is our ability to intellectualise and that MUST be given more weight.
So what do I mean by "Women, simply were too valuable to risk." This is not a hard one to figure.
You are a caveman. Born male. You are 16. Your smelly, hairy, ugly, parasite infested, 13 year old girlfriend is 3 months pregnant. You have been on the Earth long enough to know that the next 6 months are crucial to the survival of your girl and your children. There is about 30-40% chance she is going to die in childbirth. Suddenly she becomes extremely important to you. You become the guy who gets and gives. Too cold? Have my blanket. Need some fruit? I will go out and pluck it. Need fresh meat? I will risk life and limb obtaining it. Need protecting from those horrible neighbours that may wish to steal you away? I will fight to the death to preserve you. You stay here safe and warm in the cave.
One man can easily service and impregnate a number of women. A woman may have a number of children but show me the woman who has had as many children as Genghis Khan's mistresses had and I will happily tell you I have made no point at all.
Women are more valuable. Their ability to have children gives them an undefined edge over men
One of the man's best traits to strut out is their ability to protect a women and to take on any physical threat. To expose themselves to the harm that she may be spared from. Whether it be on a macro-scale : war or a micro-scale : noise outside.
Back to Cave times. A war on a cave of 10 men and 10 women leaving 3 men and 10 women was not nearly as bad as a war leaving 10 men a 3 women. I do not think a better case than all of this needs to be made for male disposability needs to be made, but let me know if so.
The chances of surviving childbirth were not crash hot. Those that did, wanted to have a few children survive them to help look after them in old age and reach childbearing age themselves. Therefore child after child was born and IF they survived this ordeal, they would have spent most of their adult life by the time they were unable to bear children, either nursing or pregnant. In the meantime"someone" had to provide for the family. Men needed to support this and so they were given the right to work BECAUSE they had the obligation to carry out such duties. The women did not have the obligation to provide for the family and so did not have the rights associated with the obligation.
What are these rights? Please define them.
I'm sure this was the consequence, "back then", but not all of it was necessary. Where did it say that the division of labour had to be like that for life?
I think nowhere. It happened because the initial division of labour, defined by childbirth, was like that, and perhaps the first few years, especially with a couple of babies being produced every few years.
Society would stick to that definition long after the last sibling had been born, however. Would you like me to list a few examples? History is full of them.
You "can". In as much as you could list how many left handed people there were in history books or red headed or blue eyes or people over 7 foot....
Not that doing so would prove anything really.
Why did society work the way it did? Now we "could" suggest "patriarchy" or more charitably suggest it was "flawed" or even that it was actually ineffective for the masses and that it worked far better in equally dividing work and raising children well before women's rights/feminism movements came to the fore.
You could suggest that. I would simply not agree with you. I am sorry.
I will say that there was and is a period of time between the changes in medical practices and health practices in which the two forces of contraception and childbirth mortality to woman and child drastically fell behind the change to work and life changes for women. My Grandmother was not privy to this kind of change. My Mother certainly was and bitter about being in the wrong generation for it. My own female peers reap the rewards of the changes and my daughter would not have known what the fuss was about, were not for her Father.
If a partner in a marriage is going to be unable to work and seen as at extreme possibility to die within the year, the responsibility and obligation to provide for that partner and any previous issue of both partners falls on.....the one at risk of dying in the imminent future...is that where you put your eggs so to speak? No it is in the partner that is likely to live. Hedging your bets for the better bet. That is with the man on the marriage. He will provide for that family. His job in society. He is identified and defined as true provider (not the nurturer). BUT if he is obliged to provide does it not follow that he has the right to provide (i.e. work). It must be that he has to work so we will give him the right to work. What about the women? They are not expected to work. What if they do work? Are they expected to? Obliged to? Must they provide? Why then should they be given the right?
^^^^^^^ This reasoning is perfectly sound....to a point. Until society changes. Until society finds and recognises that because of adequate survival rates and contraception that women are no longer forced into accepting a toss of the coin survival on each of the 10 year long 6-8 child procreation spree that they and their partner had to endure.
(Odeon: Imagine right now that every time you had sex it was a toss of the coin whether you just Fathered another child? I would fucking shoot myself personally...but there you go)
But now. Men in society are still financially obliged to support their family. Women in society are working like men so are THEY needing to support their children as the men are? Or do they get society paid pensions and child support and maybe assistance from any other man they may be seeing as my ex-wife does with her new husband?
Right and obligation. Did women in taking on work, get the obligation men had associated with work and did men lose the association. Right = obligation or does it?
It was only "recent times" that infant mortality and death in child birthing has substantially reduced.
Yes, but the division of labour has lagged behind long after that.
To keep bring up "only in recent times" in ways to suggest that the women were "held back" or "disadvantaged" is simply not true representation. It is not at all to say that once these things "stabilised" that men eagerly embraced women's wish to be workers in society. No this was a complete culture shift. Right up there with the shift from Stone Age to Bronze Age or Bronze to Iron Age.
I disagree. I'm saying that there was no reason to wait until "recent times". I'm saying that there have been all kinds of reasons to cling to this setup even though it hasn't been a necessity for most societies in a long, long time.
No Odeon. I think you are being far to ideological and simplistic.
You really have to place yourself into a traditional setting. Far easier for me to do unfortunately. (I am from country Australian cultural background - for me to understand a very uneducated, ignorant (i know you know the difference between these two similar terms), xenophobic, religious, sexist, rigid, homophobic mindset is pretty easy)
OK all you know is that men protect women, women like big strong fit guys, women don't like poofs, no one likes poofs, you have to protect your women, all blokes may want to move in on your women (especially if pissed) if so you have to protect your women by beating the men senseless), you have to provide for your woman and your family, you have to protect her not only from physical but also finical and reputation harm. You are her shield. If she gets pregnant, she will have your child. You have to make sure she is "covered". Make sure that she is not vulnerable to any of the the very little you can control.
That is your mindset, Odeon.
Work factored for you and work factored for her in this mindset (especially (x100) in the event of the child mortality and such as mentioned early plays far more into dissuading/barring/cosseting from than it does to being accepting about a partner working.
Please take into account that getting people to understand and appreciate and jump on board such a cultural shift takes time. Imagining that it would be accomplished from when it became viable, to overnight is ridiculous, 50 years...I would say bare minimum.
As far as how many years? Hell you can find remote little countries that I think most people in Australia have probably never heard of (OK I dunno, maybe they have. I will ask my daughter tomorrow. I have heard of Liechtenstein and know roughly here it is in Europe) it. But I do not think that laws in respect to women's rights in say Australia, Sweden, America or England will be relate to Liechtenstein. Maybe I am wrong BUT it looks to me like a deliberate red herring. It wasn't was it Odeon?
I tell you what. I will trade you the "Liechtenstein is somehow representative of the Western world's views about gender equality" to the "Australia, America, Sweden, and England, is somehow indicative of Western women's rights"
Cool.
The other thing is of course, men as the provider is still a societal pressure. If men and women split, invariably it is the Father forced to support any of his children and often the new partner too. (Often with Government support by way of pensions) So he keeps the obligation of the provider.
Is the woman in joining into this once male domain similarly obligated to provide for the family? Perhaps instead of the onus falling on her, the government and the ex partner and perhaps any new partner is obligated instead.
By contrast, is the man now given more credibility in the old female domain of nurturing and growing up the kids?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255 (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255)
Believe me, when we get to the stage where we are THAT far down the rabbit hole that we are saying "Where are all the male role models?" we REALLY have to take a look at the system and ask whether or not the Fathers are all bad or whether the mothers find it all too easy to minimise, marginalise and supplant the Father's role in nurturing an raising children in their way (which is absolutely not necessarily the Mother's way) and whether society debases the Masculine and the Father and uses them to be obligated for cash towards children but with unequal access and rights as a parent? Certainly looks that way. In fact looks like a verifiable imbalance.
It is an imbalance, sure. I'm not arguing that "equal rights" should tip the scale the other way. I know there are plenty of feminists saying pretty much that, that this is somehow the punishment for past injustices.
It's as fucked up as the imbalance I have been talking about. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
But I do think it is a reaction, a result of the former setup. Some kind of weird cultural inertia at work. And I do think it is interesting that it is frequently brought up whenever the rights of women in society are being discussed.
Why argue against one injustice by bringing up another?
I think it is "funny" that it is dismissed whenever it is bought up. True story. Mention this and it is the case of "back to our issues".
What "injustice specifically". I think I have adequately defended the work "imbalance issue" as seems to have been suggested. Unless of course there are other aspects to it you wish to discuss.
But I am happy of curse for any "reasonable injustice" to be bought up and discussed. I am anti-feminist. No ifs or buts. I am also all for gender equality. My daughter I hope will have the same entitlements and rights as her male peers.
Personally the feminists that you are discussing , that are wanting to bring up past injustices MUST ABSOLUTELY show me that they BOTH suffered systematic (not personal or individual douchbaggery issues) AND did not receive equal benefit on basis of their gender that went in their favour.
The fact of the matter is that men do not go through childbirth (no hear me out), so I can not directly compare women giving birth to men given birth. It is not a given that IF we can not compare this exactly condition/experience/situation to a man's, that any conclusions we can draw from looking at time off from work is horribly flawed and not cogent.
I am not trying to directly compare a prolonged illness or operation or such with childbirth and give merits as to the ways they directly compare as physical experiences. My attempt to mention this was also not a moral comparison or a matter of looking at the way that such conditions or experience may affect life.
It was simply to say, if you are on top of your game in the workplace and know your job inside out and the procedures, policies and processes and the who's who and what's what, a small break from work will not hurt you ably in this regard. You may read a few emails have a quick fill in, and ask a few questions. You are not quite up to date but close enough. Out of the loop for a year? Now this would be akin to being employed to a new firm in the same field almost. You MAY be able to get on top of things of course but it will not be easy AND the people who you left a year ago have an extra year's earth of knowledge over you and extra year of perhaps exposing themselves to a vacuum left by your departure.
So why make it harder for them? Why not HELP them instead?
How many weeks will a Father get for "parental leave compared to a mother. If a father splits with a mother, how much does society support him, in comparison to the mother, and .....sorry what are you talking about?
Now If a man was to take two weeks off or even four weeks off with annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, or whatever this i negligible effect or career or his saved super or his understanding of the company as stated above.
If woman was to tae this kind of time off to have a child...same deal.
If a man was to be long term sick and was introduced back into the workplace he would be in foreign territory for al the reasons I have just shown.
Ditto if a lady returns to work a year after having given birth.
The difficulties are not unnatural or unfair or needing to be adjusted. Whether it should be up to one parent to stay hime or both or neither, that is not unfair choice or disadvantaged to either sex. It is certainly a decision that ought to be made before having children. One percent working to provide for children is no less fair on them than what it is to the parent staying at home, regardless of gender.
I am hoping that these comments can get us actually to duel over viewpoints. Again I think we are miscuing.
Hmm. I think we already are, but correct me if I'm wrong.
But, just because it's the kind of guy I am:
Woman Is the Nigger of the World / John Lennon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k#)
Bloody good song.
We are now ;)
-
Rage, please don't obsess over this. Most women don't believe in this radfem bullshit, so don't waste too much time on it.
-
It seems to me that we are not so much arguing the same points but rather miscuing. I certain think that your viewpoint from what I understand is slightly opposed to mine but I feel we are slightly mussing each other in the exchange.
We're what?
Maybe I'm being dull but I don't understand what you're saying here.
Odeon, Its ok. As mentioned above. I felt as though we were not really going head to head as it were. I inferred you were at least slightly opposed to my opinions but I do not think either of us had really contested much or engaged vehemently, on any position strongly. Felt like we were either missing each other or feeling out. I do not like that. It made me feel like made I was misreading something and setting myself up for an embarrassment, where at some point you or someone else would say "What the hell are you on about? I/he was not saying that at all"
I do think we are sort of missing each other's points. Or at least viewpoints.
For what it worth, I don't think you are dull by a long chalk but I think this could turn out to be a knock down drag out fight....or at least another argument like our callout. The fact that you are not "dull" makes it worth having
It is an interesting argument and I'm tempted to argue also because it's you. ;D
I will start with these mentions of "recent times".
In days of old, women did not work, men did. In fact men had to. The reason was not about inequality. Nor was it to "dominate" women.
The reason WAS biological. Women, simply were too valuable to risk.
What do you base this on?
I'd argue that part of the reason was, and still is, biological. It's just the way this has all been set up. It's not fair, it's not unfair, it just is.
The consequences then were that yes, most women did not work outside the home. It was a consequence of the setup and not necessarily unfair. It just was.
But even though it's no longer an inevitable consequence and hasn't been for quite some time, it still lingers.
Indeed there is an inescapable biological/evolutionary/primal/instinctual/hormonal pull to this.
BUT we have to also face facts that as much as man and woman may be lead by emotions and hormones and everything else, we are thinking creatures too. This is why crimes of passion and PMT and "heat of the moment" type acts only go so far in law courts. We know as a society that there is genuine chemical predispositions exist but that the thing that separates us from even the next most highly evolved mammals is our ability to intellectualise and that MUST be given more weight.
It should be given some weight, but we are also beings of highly evolved bureaucracy and the need for sameness and unchange. Sorry for that last word, but I think it fits.
Think of it as sociological inertia. It was convenient for the male who no longer risked his life going out the door but instead held a job and liked to grab a pint with his mates after the long hours at the office or the coal mine, convenient to have the little woman back at home, convenient to have her prepare the kids and the dinner so both would be ready when you re-entered domestic life. Western societies, especially pre industrial revolution, are full of examples of this.
And if you, as a woman, accepted this, you would be valued and a good wife, but if you had other ambitions, like studying and finding out and having a career and a life outside that door, you would disrupt that inertia.
So what do I mean by "Women, simply were too valuable to risk." This is not a hard one to figure.
You are a caveman. Born male. You are 16. Your smelly, hairy, ugly, parasite infested, 13 year old girlfriend is 3 months pregnant. You have been on the Earth long enough to know that the next 6 months are crucial to the survival of your girl and your children. There is about 30-40% chance she is going to die in childbirth. Suddenly she becomes extremely important to you. You become the guy who gets and gives. Too cold? Have my blanket. Need some fruit? I will go out and pluck it. Need fresh meat? I will risk life and limb obtaining it. Need protecting from those horrible neighbours that may wish to steal you away? I will fight to the death to preserve you. You stay here safe and warm in the cave.
One man can easily service and impregnate a number of women. A woman may have a number of children but show me the woman who has had as many children as Genghis Khan's mistresses had and I will happily tell you I have made no point at all.
Why do you think polygamy as a concept will generally be about one male and several females but not the other way around? I'd postulate that women in that context only have value as child-bearing creatures. Not valuable at all otherwise.
So I would contest the fact that with a 30-40% risk of dying in childbirth, she becomes more valuable to you. Quite the opposite. It's how polygamy happens in a society. You simply cover all your bases, you maximise the chance of your genes to survive.
But arguing the emotional lives of cavemen is ultimately rather pointless because while the timespans so far are grossly in their favour, we've introduced more change in the last few generations than we have in millenia before, and certainly we've done quite a bit about the survival rates for both mum and child.
Time spans feed that inertia. I dare say that it's been easier to bring about a change in those survival rates than it has in the rights of women as anything as domestic service.
Women are more valuable. Their ability to have children gives them an undefined edge over men
They have a different role. Value is not just about the ability to give birth.
One of the man's best traits to strut out is their ability to protect a women and to take on any physical threat. To expose themselves to the harm that she may be spared from. Whether it be on a macro-scale : war or a micro-scale : noise outside.
Men are physically stronger than woman, and natural selection probably amplified this for some reason. This fact is in no way in opposition to what I'm saying.
Back to Cave times. A war on a cave of 10 men and 10 women leaving 3 men and 10 women was not nearly as bad as a war leaving 10 men a 3 women. I do not think a better case than all of this needs to be made for male disposability needs to be made, but let me know if so.
The alternative with 10 men and 3 women left would mean a mini war in itself, and you know it. What the woman thought about it would make little difference.
So I'd contest their value as individuals, with their own wills and ambitions and hopes and fears... They wouldn't be asked.
Of course, the 3 men and 10 women remaining would still mean that the remaining 3 set the pace. Better-quality harems, methinks.
The chances of surviving childbirth were not crash hot. Those that did, wanted to have a few children survive them to help look after them in old age and reach childbearing age themselves. Therefore child after child was born and IF they survived this ordeal, they would have spent most of their adult life by the time they were unable to bear children, either nursing or pregnant. In the meantime"someone" had to provide for the family. Men needed to support this and so they were given the right to work BECAUSE they had the obligation to carry out such duties. The women did not have the obligation to provide for the family and so did not have the rights associated with the obligation.
What are these rights? Please define them.
I'm sure this was the consequence, "back then", but not all of it was necessary. Where did it say that the division of labour had to be like that for life?
I think nowhere. It happened because the initial division of labour, defined by childbirth, was like that, and perhaps the first few years, especially with a couple of babies being produced every few years.
Society would stick to that definition long after the last sibling had been born, however. Would you like me to list a few examples? History is full of them.
You "can". In as much as you could list how many left handed people there were in history books or red headed or blue eyes or people over 7 foot....
Not that doing so would prove anything really.
But it would show examples of that sociological inertia. A hundred generations of cavemen going about their business would show little but three or four generations of renaissance and Victorian societies should show inertia and resulting bias at work. You could have a queen but you couldn't have a woman out in the open.
Why did society work the way it did? Now we "could" suggest "patriarchy" or more charitably suggest it was "flawed" or even that it was actually ineffective for the masses and that it worked far better in equally dividing work and raising children well before women's rights/feminism movements came to the fore.
I hate the word "patriarchy". It is so grossly misused by the militant feminists that it has lost its value.
Was the division of labour equal? It may have been, at one point, but I do think that it became another consequence of that inertia, something one party came to accept more readily than the other as the years went by and your chances of surviving childbirth increased.
You could suggest that. I would simply not agree with you. I am sorry.
I didn't, so don't be. :P
I will say that there was and is a period of time between the changes in medical practices and health practices in which the two forces of contraception and childbirth mortality to woman and child drastically fell behind the change to work and life changes for women. My Grandmother was not privy to this kind of change. My Mother certainly was and bitter about being in the wrong generation for it. My own female peers reap the rewards of the changes and my daughter would not have known what the fuss was about, were not for her Father.
But are your female peers equal to you now, in every way, or do you think there might be imbalances left, some lingering inertia from the pressure of a dozen past generations?
If a partner in a marriage is going to be unable to work and seen as at extreme possibility to die within the year, the responsibility and obligation to provide for that partner and any previous issue of both partners falls on.....the one at risk of dying in the imminent future...is that where you put your eggs so to speak? No it is in the partner that is likely to live. Hedging your bets for the better bet. That is with the man on the marriage. He will provide for that family. His job in society. He is identified and defined as true provider (not the nurturer). BUT if he is obliged to provide does it not follow that he has the right to provide (i.e. work). It must be that he has to work so we will give him the right to work. What about the women? They are not expected to work. What if they do work? Are they expected to? Obliged to? Must they provide? Why then should they be given the right?
Because they wanted to? Because their place was now defined by inertia rather than by an actual fact? Because they'd see that there was more to life than to give birth, cook dinners and make a home out of the cave?
See, at the same time as your chances of survival increased, other advances would be made in society, things that would allow you as a male to provide for the little woman and your offspring without risking your life or spending your every waking moment simply *providing*. Things like technological advances, books to read (in quite a few societies, you'd learn how to, but the little woman back home wouldn't), and public houses to frequent when the providing was done for the day.
You might think that as a provider, it would be your right. But then, so would the little woman, because she, too, would see herself as a provider. Your colleague. Your peer. But she wouldn't be allowed to, her place would be at home.
^^^^^^^ This reasoning is perfectly sound....to a point. Until society changes. Until society finds and recognises that because of adequate survival rates and contraception that women are no longer forced into accepting a toss of the coin survival on each of the 10 year long 6-8 child procreation spree that they and their partner had to endure.
(Odeon: Imagine right now that every time you had sex it was a toss of the coin whether you just Fathered another child? I would fucking shoot myself personally...but there you go)
I'd rather not.
But now. Men in society are still financially obliged to support their family. Women in society are working like men so are THEY needing to support their children as the men are? Or do they get society paid pensions and child support and maybe assistance from any other man they may be seeing as my ex-wife does with her new husband?
That same inertia at work, methinks. No more fair than the woman forced to stay back at home, but something that needs to be addressed and changed. Two wrongs and all that.
Right and obligation. Did women in taking on work, get the obligation men had associated with work and did men lose the association. Right = obligation or does it?
See above.
It was only "recent times" that infant mortality and death in child birthing has substantially reduced.
Yes, but the division of labour has lagged behind long after that.
To keep bring up "only in recent times" in ways to suggest that the women were "held back" or "disadvantaged" is simply not true representation. It is not at all to say that once these things "stabilised" that men eagerly embraced women's wish to be workers in society. No this was a complete culture shift. Right up there with the shift from Stone Age to Bronze Age or Bronze to Iron Age.
I disagree. I'm saying that there was no reason to wait until "recent times". I'm saying that there have been all kinds of reasons to cling to this setup even though it hasn't been a necessity for most societies in a long, long time.
No Odeon. I think you are being far to ideological and simplistic.
You really have to place yourself into a traditional setting. Far easier for me to do unfortunately.
Different, maybe. Easier, no. I don't know more about your society than you know about mine. But I will say this: I have seen different societies at work because I have lived in several. Have you?
(I am from country Australian cultural background - for me to understand a very uneducated, ignorant (i know you know the difference between these two similar terms), xenophobic, religious, sexist, rigid, homophobic mindset is pretty easy)
OK all you know is that men protect women, women like big strong fit guys, women don't like poofs, no one likes poofs, you have to protect your women, all blokes may want to move in on your women (especially if pissed) if so you have to protect your women by beating the men senseless), you have to provide for your woman and your family, you have to protect her not only from physical but also finical and reputation harm. You are her shield. If she gets pregnant, she will have your child. You have to make sure she is "covered". Make sure that she is not vulnerable to any of the the very little you can control.
That is your mindset, Odeon.
Not very different from the ones I have seen, I think. On the surface, sure, but the "traditional" values of the Finnish society of my youth are very similar to the ones you describe.
A sociologist would pinpoint several differences, of course, but I do think the division of labour between men and women happened largely in the same way.
Work factored for you and work factored for her in this mindset (especially (x100) in the event of the child mortality and such as mentioned early plays far more into dissuading/barring/cosseting from than it does to being accepting about a partner working.
Please take into account that getting people to understand and appreciate and jump on board such a cultural shift takes time. Imagining that it would be accomplished from when it became viable, to overnight is ridiculous, 50 years...I would say bare minimum.
Oh yes. Far more than that. Sociological inertia at work. It takes generations to change anything, and not all the changes are what you expect them to be, regardless of your sex.
As far as how many years? Hell you can find remote little countries that I think most people in Australia have probably never heard of (OK I dunno, maybe they have. I will ask my daughter tomorrow. I have heard of Liechtenstein and know roughly here it is in Europe) it. But I do not think that laws in respect to women's rights in say Australia, Sweden, America or England will be relate to Liechtenstein. Maybe I am wrong BUT it looks to me like a deliberate red herring. It wasn't was it Odeon?
It was and it wasn't. I brought it up because even though the example is rather extreme, none of us lives in a bubble. Lichtenstein as a concept is not an isolated island because it affects, and is affected by, its surroundings. Think of Lichtenstein as one of several mindsets of which there is a whole spectrum. You and I live on opposite sides of the globe but nevertheless we affect each other. This is how small the world has become.
This is how we constantly affect each other. This is how we change and how we stay the same. It takes years.
I tell you what. I will trade you the "Liechtenstein is somehow representative of the Western world's views about gender equality" to the "Australia, America, Sweden, and England, is somehow indicative of Western women's rights"
Cool.
They are ALL examples of how things work today. They are not the same and they won't ever be, but they affect each other.
Do you know what the butterfly effect is? I'm sure you do. Such seemingly innocent changes are not innocent, not insignificant. Or UNchanges.
We have a long way to go, but I am hoping that the increased means to communicate will bring about a change in inertia faster.
The other thing is of course, men as the provider is still a societal pressure. If men and women split, invariably it is the Father forced to support any of his children and often the new partner too. (Often with Government support by way of pensions) So he keeps the obligation of the provider.
Is the woman in joining into this once male domain similarly obligated to provide for the family? Perhaps instead of the onus falling on her, the government and the ex partner and perhaps any new partner is obligated instead.
By contrast, is the man now given more credibility in the old female domain of nurturing and growing up the kids?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255 (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/welcome-to-the-school-for-blokes-where-young-boys-become-men/story-fnet08ui-1226786857255)
Believe me, when we get to the stage where we are THAT far down the rabbit hole that we are saying "Where are all the male role models?" we REALLY have to take a look at the system and ask whether or not the Fathers are all bad or whether the mothers find it all too easy to minimise, marginalise and supplant the Father's role in nurturing an raising children in their way (which is absolutely not necessarily the Mother's way) and whether society debases the Masculine and the Father and uses them to be obligated for cash towards children but with unequal access and rights as a parent? Certainly looks that way. In fact looks like a verifiable imbalance.
It is an imbalance, sure. I'm not arguing that "equal rights" should tip the scale the other way. I know there are plenty of feminists saying pretty much that, that this is somehow the punishment for past injustices.
It's as fucked up as the imbalance I have been talking about. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
But I do think it is a reaction, a result of the former setup. Some kind of weird cultural inertia at work. And I do think it is interesting that it is frequently brought up whenever the rights of women in society are being discussed.
Why argue against one injustice by bringing up another?
I think it is "funny" that it is dismissed whenever it is bought up. True story. Mention this and it is the case of "back to our issues".
Sorry, I don't mean to dismiss it, not in the way you suggest. I think it needs to be addressed, too, but I also think allowing it to derail the other discussion is just as wrong, just as fucked up. Inertia at work.
What "injustice specifically". I think I have adequately defended the work "imbalance issue" as seems to have been suggested. Unless of course there are other aspects to it you wish to discuss.
But I am happy of curse for any "reasonable injustice" to be bought up and discussed. I am anti-feminist. No ifs or buts. I am also all for gender equality. My daughter I hope will have the same entitlements and rights as her male peers.
If you by "feminism" mean the militant women shouting patriarchy at the top of their lungs whenever equality is discussed by the wrong gender, I agree with you. I don't want to tip the scale the other way.
Personally the feminists that you are discussing , that are wanting to bring up past injustices MUST ABSOLUTELY show me that they BOTH suffered systematic (not personal or individual douchbaggery issues) AND did not receive equal benefit on basis of their gender that went in their favour.
Um, see all of the above. I don't agree with the feminists of that type at all.
The fact of the matter is that men do not go through childbirth (no hear me out), so I can not directly compare women giving birth to men given birth. It is not a given that IF we can not compare this exactly condition/experience/situation to a man's, that any conclusions we can draw from looking at time off from work is horribly flawed and not cogent.
I am not trying to directly compare a prolonged illness or operation or such with childbirth and give merits as to the ways they directly compare as physical experiences. My attempt to mention this was also not a moral comparison or a matter of looking at the way that such conditions or experience may affect life.
It was simply to say, if you are on top of your game in the workplace and know your job inside out and the procedures, policies and processes and the who's who and what's what, a small break from work will not hurt you ably in this regard. You may read a few emails have a quick fill in, and ask a few questions. You are not quite up to date but close enough. Out of the loop for a year? Now this would be akin to being employed to a new firm in the same field almost. You MAY be able to get on top of things of course but it will not be easy AND the people who you left a year ago have an extra year's earth of knowledge over you and extra year of perhaps exposing themselves to a vacuum left by your departure.
So why make it harder for them? Why not HELP them instead?
How many weeks will a Father get for "parental leave compared to a mother. If a father splits with a mother, how much does society support him, in comparison to the mother, and .....sorry what are you talking about?
If you are away for a year, it should make sense to bring you up to speed in any way possible and thus embrace the fact that you have been allowed leave for that long.
Regardless of your sex.
It is my personal belief that the infants need their mother more than their father, for the first few months at least. I don't know if this is the case or not, but to me, equality should not be about sameness, it should be about equal opportunities in harmony with your actual differences.
Not sure if that makes sense as a sentence but can't be arsed to edit it, not now. :P
Now If a man was to take two weeks off or even four weeks off with annual leave, sick leave, long service leave, or whatever this i negligible effect or career or his saved super or his understanding of the company as stated above.
If woman was to tae this kind of time off to have a child...same deal.
If a man was to be long term sick and was introduced back into the workplace he would be in foreign territory for al the reasons I have just shown.
Ditto if a lady returns to work a year after having given birth.
The difficulties are not unnatural or unfair or needing to be adjusted. Whether it should be up to one parent to stay hime or both or neither, that is not unfair choice or disadvantaged to either sex. It is certainly a decision that ought to be made before having children. One percent working to provide for children is no less fair on them than what it is to the parent staying at home, regardless of gender.
I am hoping that these comments can get us actually to duel over viewpoints. Again I think we are miscuing.
Hmm. I think we already are, but correct me if I'm wrong.
But, just because it's the kind of guy I am:
Woman Is the Nigger of the World / John Lennon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k#)
Bloody good song.
We are now ;)
:)
There is not enough Lennon in the world. This is a gross injustice.
John Lennon - Mother (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDVkkwl6aJo#)
-
Rage, please don't obsess over this. Most women don't believe in this radfem bullshit, so don't waste too much time on it.
The problem is that what Rage discussed has little to do with any radfem bullshit.
-
Rage, please don't obsess over this. Most women don't believe in this radfem bullshit, so don't waste too much time on it.
Its not just the radfem bullshit. Its all social justice. I hate MRAs, I hate Atheism plus, I hate freethoughtblogs, I hate skepchick international, I hate all of them. I think they're all idiots who have forgotten how to be compassionate so they pretend.
-
Odeon, I think we are pretty honest. I know that quoting as you and I have been doing is the best way of preserving context. It stops innocent or not so innocence out of context quoting and cherry picking.
Having said that, after quoting a quote quote that quotes a quotes that quotes a..., I think it gets a bit unwieldy. So I am going to try to summarise what I mean outside out the quote on quote and "hopefully" not be seen as doing exactly what I have taken great pains at trying to point out that I am trying to avoid.
If you think I have not been fair or have missed the context of something you have earlier quote, please pull me up. This is not me trying to avoid context or circumvent difficulties in defending a point....Ugh.
I will say that there was and is a period of time between the changes in medical practices and health practices in which the two forces of contraception and childbirth mortality to woman and child drastically fell behind the change to work and life changes for women. My Grandmother was not privy to this kind of change. My Mother certainly was and bitter about being in the wrong generation for it. My own female peers reap the rewards of the changes and my daughter would not have known what the fuss was about, were not for her Father.
But are your female peers equal to you now, in every way, or do you think there might be imbalances left, some lingering inertia from the pressure of a dozen past generations?
In short, Yes.
I know this is not the answer you were interested in but I think that if imbalances = inequality rather than imbalances = differences, then I think you could well be asking two different questions.
Here is what I mean.
But are your female peers equal to you now, in every way [are there any differences between you and them in society or are you and they socialised exactly the same?], or do you think there might be imbalances [if the "differences" between men and women are there, then this makes them unequal - presumably in men's favour - so we have to assume for the next part of the sentence to work imbalance = differences = unequal gender treatment = women treated unfairly] left, some lingering inertia from the pressure of a dozen past generations?
I would say that this is a loaded question because it assumes things. Things that I do not believe warrant in assuming. I believe that one of the most effective strategies of feminism is to make these assumptions, build a narrative around "assumed truths", and guid foundations of a lot of ideologies about man, woman, society, value and worth in society and so on. Most of this is certainly far from true. It relies on "feelings".
I think that this is a kind of quasi-intellectulaism on a smaller scale and less refined (for want of a better word) degree, can easily be seen and exposed, but at such a large level and long term level with people that hold huge sway in further public knowledge, it does burrow like worms into the public conscience, without much resistance.
I honestly think that society is (and has been for a good while) falling over itself to empower women and support women, in an attempt to right perceived prejudice and slights against women. It is often very overly reactionary on any suspected injustice real or fake and will jump all over an issue. Anyone questioning this will be attacked and branded. If anything is exposed on the other side of the ledger, in respect to problems it may be causing men or male issues being ignored, it is minimised, ridiculed, or swept under the carpet.
This is not simply the domain of the radfems, and so when you ask
What "injustice specifically". I think I have adequately defended the work "imbalance issue" as seems to have been suggested. Unless of course there are other aspects to it you wish to discuss.
But I am happy of curse for any "reasonable injustice" to be bought up and discussed. I am anti-feminist. No ifs or buts. I am also all for gender equality. My daughter I hope will have the same entitlements and rights as her male peers.
If you by "feminism" mean the militant women shouting patriarchy at the top of their lungs whenever equality is discussed by the wrong gender, I agree with you. I don't want to tip the scale the other way.
No, that is not what I mean. When I mean feminism, I mean feminism, not militant feminism, not radical feminism. I mean feminism.
Where a lot of people go from here of course is the "Well then YOU just misunderstand Feminism. "Feminism" is just another name for equality and as Feminists we strive to bring a "balance". Between men and women." They may even if questioned to cite "Well of course there are imbalances with women and men. It is proven without a doubt that these imbalances in society favour men at the expense of women and that women are unequal with men in society"
It is just simply the act of repeating the same thing over and over and trotting out same skewed figures again and again. All rarely questioned. Any figures coming out to show a flaw in the narrative is silenced and or buried and any opinions that question are seen as either dangerous, misunderstood, ignorant, stupid or trolling.
If we can pretend even for a second that Feminism is "invested in equality in society for men and women", then I do not think we can find it at all difficult to suggest very quickly some "imbalances" completely in women's favour that do in no way favour men in society, and it is all very convenient that Feminism barely pays lip service (if at all) to these unfortunate aspects of society but more often than not still seeks to promote the women in these aspects regardless and NOT promoting men. All whilst writing off any attempt for any men's groups to gain any prominence in these areas, writing them off as chauvinists and rape apologists and the like.
When it comes to your social inertia, no Odeon, I do not see it. Not for a very long time. I think that society is so to change and they have changed. In fact quicker and to a greater degree than they were able and it has left imbalances the other way. I do not think that viewing women in society as being subjugated by a unequal system is either necessary or honest or helpful.
-
I'm not entirely sure I want to quote your entire post to answer it. More to the point, I'm not even entirely sure of how I wish to reply.
I do think the sociological inertia I mentioned and the imbalances still lingering are facts, but instead of simply quoting your post and disagreeing, producing yet another round of opinions, I'm going to produce numbers that I maintain are the results of these facts.
The gender pay gap in Australia is quoted as between 15-17%, but the current number appears to be 17.5%. I found this fascinating quote in the Wikipedia article:
"Using robust microeconomic modelling techniques, based on a comprehensive and critical evaluation of several methodologies, we found that simply being a woman is the major contributing factor to the gap in Australia, accounting for 60 per cent of the difference between women’s and men’s earnings, a finding which reflects other Australian research in this area. Indeed, the results showed that if the effects of being a woman were removed, the average wage of an Australian woman would increase by $1.87 per hour, equating to an additional $65 per week or $3,394 annually, based on a 35 hour week." (The second most important factor in explaining the pay gap was industrial segregation.)[2
Note this:
simply being a woman is the major contributing factor to the gap in Australia
There's more to be read in that Wikipedia article, but I find the quote in bold very illuminating. It would certainly seem to support my argument, don't you think?
A roughly similar average (16%) is quoted for Europe as a whole by the European Commission (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics), but with significant differences between the member countries. Negative numbers are also reported, with women actually making more than men in some sectors, but those seem to be few.
But let's pick another few numbers. Around 20% of the members of Swedish corporate boards are women (as of 2010). Only about 11% of the CEOs are women.
Does this mean the men are better qualified? It would seem not, because EU studies suggest that companies with more women on board report higher return on sales and higher return on investment. For an article about this, see http://www.thelocal.se/20110308/32466. (http://www.thelocal.se/20110308/32466.) Interestingly, while the article says EU officials are now suggesting enforcing quotas, it also quotes Sweden's equality minister at the time, a female, as being against such legislation.
Are these numbers the results of discrimination, a consequence of the sociological inertia, or perhaps a combination of several factors? I don't know, but the numbers do suggest that there is still a problem, whatever the causes.
We've discussed the Nobel Prize and the apparent imbalance in laureate gender through the years, so I think I don't need to go there now, but its possible causes should be mentioned. This article (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110207/full/470153a.html) suggests that while direct discrimination may no longer be a factor, the academic system still favours men.
Another article (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/a-map-of-the-gender-gap-in-science-around-the-globe/280407/) quotes a UNESCO headcount of employed scientists around the globe and suggests lingering cultural bias.
Both these articles (read them; I won't quote them here) indicate, in my mind, why female laureates remain a minority, even if we choose to believe the Nobel Committee when they claim that gender is unimportant when selecting laureates; only merits will matter. Cultural bias; sociological inertia; etc.
I could go on, citing numbers fetched off the internet, but I think you'll see my point.
-
I'm not entirely sure I want to quote your entire post to answer it. More to the point, I'm not even entirely sure of how I wish to reply.
I do think the sociological inertia I mentioned and the imbalances still lingering are facts, but instead of simply quoting your post and disagreeing, producing yet another round of opinions, I'm going to produce numbers that I maintain are the results of these facts.
The gender pay gap in Australia is quoted as between 15-17%, but the current number appears to be 17.5%. I found this fascinating quote in the Wikipedia article:
"Using robust microeconomic modelling techniques, based on a comprehensive and critical evaluation of several methodologies, we found that simply being a woman is the major contributing factor to the gap in Australia, accounting for 60 per cent of the difference between women’s and men’s earnings, a finding which reflects other Australian research in this area. Indeed, the results showed that if the effects of being a woman were removed, the average wage of an Australian woman would increase by $1.87 per hour, equating to an additional $65 per week or $3,394 annually, based on a 35 hour week." (The second most important factor in explaining the pay gap was industrial segregation.)[2
Note this:
simply being a woman is the major contributing factor to the gap in Australia
There's more to be read in that Wikipedia article, but I find the quote in bold very illuminating. It would certainly seem to support my argument, don't you think?
A roughly similar average (16%) is quoted for Europe as a whole by the European Commission (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics), but with significant differences between the member countries. Negative numbers are also reported, with women actually making more than men in some sectors, but those seem to be few.
But let's pick another few numbers. Around 20% of the members of Swedish corporate boards are women (as of 2010). Only about 11% of the CEOs are women.
Does this mean the men are better qualified? It would seem not, because EU studies suggest that companies with more women on board report higher return on sales and higher return on investment. For an article about this, see http://www.thelocal.se/20110308/32466. (http://www.thelocal.se/20110308/32466.) Interestingly, while the article says EU officials are now suggesting enforcing quotas, it also quotes Sweden's equality minister at the time, a female, as being against such legislation.
Are these numbers the results of discrimination, a consequence of the sociological inertia, or perhaps a combination of several factors? I don't know, but the numbers do suggest that there is still a problem, whatever the causes.
We've discussed the Nobel Prize and the apparent imbalance in laureate gender through the years, so I think I don't need to go there now, but its possible causes should be mentioned. This article (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110207/full/470153a.html) suggests that while direct discrimination may no longer be a factor, the academic system still favours men.
Another article (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/a-map-of-the-gender-gap-in-science-around-the-globe/280407/) quotes a UNESCO headcount of employed scientists around the globe and suggests lingering cultural bias.
Both these articles (read them; I won't quote them here) indicate, in my mind, why female laureates remain a minority, even if we choose to believe the Nobel Committee when they claim that gender is unimportant when selecting laureates; only merits will matter. Cultural bias; sociological inertia; etc.
I could go on, citing numbers fetched off the internet, but I think you'll see my point.
Yes and no. That is I understand what you are inferring and I understand how you came to the understanding you have.
If you think that this impresses me or that I have never seen such claims made, you are incorrect.
I not only question the figures but reject them too and there is a number of reasons why.
Firstly, time and time again when such figures are produced and queried, certain things tend to come to the fore. Things like voluntary overtime, performance bonuses, commissions, remote location money, danger money and EVEN classifying roles in an industry that are similar but may involve one behind a desk at head office and the other on an oil rig away from the home town and comparing them because they have the same qualifications and skill set.
Secondly, it is actually against the law for employers to do this. They face fines and risk bankruptcy and or jail time to do so.
Thirdly, IF it was that men and women can do the same role and women can get paid less, as a company, would you hire the expensive man or the inexpensive woman?
Fourthly, I have seen as explained before, that in my office, you would possibly find pay difference between the sales people. Why? Because the guy simply outperform the girls. For the first month in the time that I have been there. three girls made top ten, in the top ten sellers. Guys there work more overtime with the girls normally choosing to swap shifts. if the same kind of idiots you fed Wikipedia these bullshit figures were to look at our office what do you HONESTLY think would be the result of their findings? Please consider equal number of men and women and all on same base salary and commission + overtime (voluntary)?
Give it a shot and tell me if you think that they would (without reference to anything else in context to the figures they derive) say that in our office men and women are paid less.
Odeon, I would like you to tell me what the difference is between homeless men and homeless women is. Seems reasonable don't you think that there is always a fuss about glass ceiling and 20%/80% and an implicit inference that it is the man's fault for allowing this and that it is because society favours the man. So....why is there a difference win homeless men and homeless women?
Why is there no fuss on that? I can tell you that the differences are worrying. I can tell you that society does not seem to give a rat's arse about these differences and nor does it try to explain these "imbalances" as some women on men conspiracy theory. Why not do you think? Is it because it is not a very coveted position?
But why? Could it be any other position than because men have penises and women don't. Maybe it may have something to do with the stressful dog eat dog, every man for himself, competitive, non-co-operative structure that is upper management. Perhaps the number of women if given the choice of a tooth and nail fight for the privilege of becoming a loathed, opportunistic, career ladder climbing heart attack candidate, does not hold the same sway as it does the men who do reach this AND the women that do master such questionable skills. That would be my guess. I would also cite that if women are CHOOSING not to go to that management then I really don't think there is any foul. If you are a female starting with a company and you work up to a team leader or lower level manager role and seeing what is required higher and choosing not to go higher, then I say that you doing that ought neither reflect badly on your choice, nor the guy who did go higher, nor the company for hiring him nor society for allowing this to happen.
Why? Because it is bullshit.
In your statistics, Odeon, did you identify any of the things mention or was it just all down to "because they were women"?
That is how it looks and I know you are smart enough to see that neither skewing facts nor figures is a difficult thing if you are an academic with an agenda to socially engineer and if your work simply bolsters others who have come before you making the same dishonest or at least misrepresentative things. I suspect this has been going on at least as long as we have had people of a Feminist bent in Academia.
As I said it has been a while for the worms to have burrowed into the social consciousness.
-
Here's my problem with your reply: if you simply reject statistics as BS when they don't suit you, requiring me instead to produce numbers that better suit your argument, we are going to lack a common ground, a baseline, to discuss. I could quote any kind of study, anywhere, but if it didn't fit your argument, you'd simply ignore it as I understand it, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I would like to point out that they are not "my" numbers, and nor are they "Wikipedia bullshit". They are numbers quoted on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia did not produce them. It's not where they originated.
And nor am I going to discuss your workplace specifically. This is for a number of reasons, of which one of the more important is that at best, I'd only be able to gather second-hand information to your direct experience. Hardly seems fair to me. I would have thought it better to discuss the numerous studies readily available from a variety of sources to you and me both, but if you reject this option, we won't be able to get far.
In other words, what's there left to discuss?
Thus, you can have this one. You did not sway my opinions in the least, but I see no further point with continuing this.
-
Here's my problem with your reply: if you simply reject statistics as BS when they don't suit you, requiring me instead to produce numbers that better suit your argument, we are going to lack a common ground, a baseline, to discuss. I could quote any kind of study, anywhere, but if it didn't fit your argument, you'd simply ignore it as I understand it, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I would like to point out that they are not "my" numbers, and nor are they "Wikipedia bullshit". They are numbers quoted on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia did not produce them. It's not where they originated.
And nor am I going to discuss your workplace specifically. This is for a number of reasons, of which one of the more important is that at best, I'd only be able to gather second-hand information to your direct experience. Hardly seems fair to me. I would have thought it better to discuss the numerous studies readily available from a variety of sources to you and me both, but if you reject this option, we won't be able to get far.
In other words, what's there left to discuss?
Thus, you can have this one. You did not sway my opinions in the least, but I see no further point with continuing this.
Here is the problem with what you have said. If you point at numbers on a study and tell me what that means based on that information, it is reasonable to assume that their is no partiality in the study and the number suggest a true representation of things.
The only problem is that you and I know that numbers can lie, or simply not give the whole story. Where the default conclusion drawn looks unrealistic, then pointing at numbers and saying "But....see", is not the way forward in serious discussion. It assumes too much on too little.
So if we say that men and women in the same jobs in the same industries and working the same hours and comparing permanent with permanent and contractor with contractor AND it shows on average 16% difference, then this is problematic. In fact, it is ridiculous.
I am not saying for a moment that there may not be some employers who may like to pay men more than their women employees. But to make the above assumptions (on a default reading true) we are not talking one or two places. We are talking about systematic sexism and favouritism AND we are throughout the entire Australian and European and American workforce.
But more than JUST this in Australia, and no doubt in Europe and America, it is actually against the law for employers to pay men and women less based on the same work. More than this to believe all of this up to this point, you would have to assume that systematically employers would rather pay more for the same work and get men than pay less and get women.
Odeon, I know that you are not stupid and I am not going to condescend to you. I know that looking at the above, even if the default is to say "The numbers support the proposition", viewing these things will lead you to question, as I do, why the numbers?
Again, if we know that studies have shown us these figures and the figures do not make any rational sense, then it does not automatically mean that the figures given are beyond all approach or rebuke. If they are not infallible then we have to look a little closer for other alternatives.
* Maybe the figures are completely made up?
* Maybe the earnings were compared unfairly (an example the voluntary overtime, sales-based commissions and so on not distinguished from the same base salaries)
* Maybe there was a want to compare part time to full-time, or casual to permanent, remote location to head office, or so on
* Maybe there are executive positions where the salary is negotiable and this is not taken into account. If a director in company A gets a higher negotiated salary than company B, are the two Directors comparable as they are both Directors?
* Maybe they are not comparing the same kind of jobs - a level one labour or clerk in an oil rig will likely get a Hell of a lot more than a level lone clerk or labourer NOT on an oil rig. Are men or women more or less likely to be on oil rig and paid higher for the privilege?
Once these kinds of things are taken into account we see that the figures out of context and perhaps not actually qualified as well as they might, may give rise to unquestioned assumptions...like "women are underpaid"
Lets say that according to the statistics that women on average earn $60000/year and men earned $69000/year AND $12000 of that was remote access money, danger money, overtime, commission, on-call rates, shift loading, compared to an average of $3000of the females salary being these things.
No if we look at straight salary vs salary, is the message we get that Men earn 15% more than women and is that a fair assessment no matter who states it in what study? Or is it in fact more true to say that on average base salaries are equal BUT Men are more inclined to do things such as dangerous and or shift work and voluntary overtime more than women?
Now If either could be said and the former does get said, then we have to ask ourselves "why?".
What possible motive would the members of society that inform public opinion, have to give merit to such misrepresentations?
Now there are a lot of reasons that the powers that be may not want to either make things available that show contrary to the accepted narrative and to endorse things that are not correct but fit the narrative.
Maybe they have an agenda (preserve job, don't rock the boat, like things the way they are an want to keep things as they are) or maybe they do not know better.
I think your want to stop at "But studies show..." especially on an issue such as this is really selling yourself short, Odeon
-
If studies are not a convincing argument to you, what kind of arguments do you find convincing?
-
If studies are not a convincing argument to you, what kind of arguments do you find convincing?
Good question. I think in issues such as this, where the numbers seem to not in themselves stand up to any real scrutiny, there HAS to be explanations given.
What I mean to say is that there is a world of difference between the conversation around the following (hypothetical examples to follow)
"The average base wage for men and women is $60000 but men have consistently bought hone an average of $69000 due to greater voluntary overtime, danger money, shift allowance, remote location money, etc."
AND
"The average total gross pay between men and women is different by $9000 with women earning just $60000 and $69000"
One makes sense to me and I see it and can comprehend that with equal work and with equal jobs that such voluntary overtime and such would certainly allow on a choice-based earning differential BUT in one we would be having the conversation "Women are underpaid in the workforce" where as in the other we would be having the conversation "Women are not choosing to do overtime or place themselves in danger in their job for more pay, to the extent that men are"
One of the conversations is likely not be seen as warranting further studies nor would it justify the recipients or the creators of the studies where as the other is likely to feed the hordes that wait slobberingly for such studies. I am not talking about the public. I am talking about the industries and academia built around the ideologies of women victimhood and suppression.
The studies are one small mechanism for the people in these areas to continue to self-propagate their demand for their work.
Make no mistake that the studies that do actually show the kinds of things that would give us more pause for thought, but are not following the status quo (for example studies that show that in domestic violence the perpetrators are roughly evenly split between men and women) never see the light of day. The people that commonly bury such studies are the people in Departments such as Ministry for Status of Women (or its equivalent in the country in question). Government Departments that have the veto rights in respect to anything that they consider may not "be in the best interests of women". We also know that University has a barely concealed Feminist agenda/leaning. So to find people to impartially make these studies in the first place is a hard ask. The same goes for publishing them.
So what IS the answer? Well, it is a pretty easy one. Transparency. Something coming out of all this without a bias.
If I am trying to be told
"In Australia, where it is against the law for men and women to be paid less than each other for the same work, and where employers will be at risk of jail time for not complying, most companies pay on average women 15% less than their male counterparts BUT don't just employ women which seem to be cheaper employment."
That is exactly the message it seems and IF I don't swallow it and say "It really makes no sense that the employers systematically would expose themselves like that and in the event that they did, they would surely employ more women (perhaps to save for their legal fees). There has to be something wrong with what I am being fed as a unquestionable truth", then I am being told, "NO studies prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and are infallible".
Does this sound right to you?
-
Here's what bothers me:
I believe there are a lot of independent studies that all point in the same general direction. Wikipedia articles provide a great starting point because they tend to summarise these independent studies. If you look at, say, a discussion of the current gender pay gap in the EU, it's not one study, it's several. While I can certainly entertain the notion of a number of these being misleading or perhaps not accounting for A, B or C, I have difficulty in accepting that every single one would be wrong, for whatever reason.
You, on the other hand, produce eloquent prose that, in essence, claims this. That they are wrong, all of them, every independent study. Wrong.
Mate, I don't think you are stupid--I know you aren't--but I do think you are fighting rather overwhelming statistics, and going to great lengths to do so.
If my basic raison d'etre is something you can agree on--that men and women should have equal rights, that they should be paid equally for equal work, that laws should account for their differences in order to encourage individual success and, in the end, produce maximum return on those laws for the society as a whole, etc, etc, etc--don't you think your energy would be better spent in making sure that it actually becomes a reality that we don't have to argue over?
Because everywhere I look, I can find examples of this, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that someone would simply deny it occurs.
Now, I could keep the conversation going, reply to statements and quote statistics to back up my arguments with, but since you've already dismissed that particular kind of discussion by stating you simply won't accept the statistics and the studies and whatnot, I fail to see a reason to why I should bother. What would be left of our discussion would be a matter of opinion.
And that simply does not interest me, not here.
-
If I remember correctly, Swedish women don't earn less for the same time and the same work than Swedish men. But they work less. This simple fact is twisted by feminists, so they claim that Swedish men are better paid for exactly the same work, which simply isn't true. That's the level these "debates" are on in society.
-
If I remember correctly, Swedish women don't earn less for the same time and the same work than Swedish men. But they work less. This simple fact is twisted by feminists, so they claim that Swedish men are better paid for exactly the same work, which simply isn't true. That's the level these "debates" are on in society.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics)
How about this level? I suggest you produce opposing numbers to prove your point.
-
How do you know that the statistics isn't screwed up to start with? We have politicians claiming that mass immigration of religious nuts, criminals and illiterates is "enriching" on all levels of society, so it's not like I believe anything that they come up with.
-
I don't always, so I tend to go for several independent studies. I suggest you to do the same.
-
Here's what bothers me:
I believe there are a lot of independent studies that all point in the same general direction. Wikipedia articles provide a great starting point because they tend to summarise these independent studies. If you look at, say, a discussion of the current gender pay gap in the EU, it's not one study, it's several. While I can certainly entertain the notion of a number of these being misleading or perhaps not accounting for A, B or C, I have difficulty in accepting that every single one would be wrong, for whatever reason.
You, on the other hand, produce eloquent prose that, in essence, claims this. That they are wrong, all of them, every independent study. Wrong.
Mate, I don't think you are stupid--I know you aren't--but I do think you are fighting rather overwhelming statistics, and going to great lengths to do so.
If my basic raison d'etre is something you can agree on--that men and women should have equal rights, that they should be paid equally for equal work, that laws should account for their differences in order to encourage individual success and, in the end, produce maximum return on those laws for the society as a whole, etc, etc, etc--don't you think your energy would be better spent in making sure that it actually becomes a reality that we don't have to argue over?
Because everywhere I look, I can find examples of this, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that someone would simply deny it occurs.
Now, I could keep the conversation going, reply to statements and quote statistics to back up my arguments with, but since you've already dismissed that particular kind of discussion by stating you simply won't accept the statistics and the studies and whatnot, I fail to see a reason to why I should bother. What would be left of our discussion would be a matter of opinion.
And that simply does not interest me, not here.
Perhaps simply looking at things from a different perspective.
If you think that those numbers are serious consideration, rather than me dismiss them completely out of hand, perhaps we go the next stage which is "Ok, so there is this widespread systematic problem seemingly through every employment sector in Australia to account for these "realistic" figures given, and despite the fact that it is actually both against the law (and has been for a while) and is far from in an employees best interests to underpay women doing the same work as men. So how is this happening, being that it is proved beyond a measure of a doubt AND why are we not bending over employers?"
The thing is I can not see how anyone can approach this without suspecting that just maybe the figures are not as absolute.
I have already given examples already that could (without doctoring the figures or falsifying them or even being misleading) that could show such a disparity AND yet not reflect anything more than men being more readily to do shift work, voluntary overtime, do jobs that pay remote allowance or danger money. Unless an effort was especially made to show this then you would not be able to account for it.
Given the wide variety of work factors that influence how a person and why a person gets paid what they get paid it is not enough to say "a gets less than b therefore...."
Figures that do not examine anything. Studies based around figures may be good bad or indifferent.
You say all the cases can not be wrong and I say all employers can't be wrong because expecting them to hire the more expensive gender at personal and business risk, does not make sense.
The thing that does make sense is that there are many people that. Get a lot of power, influence and money over such ideologies.
-
If my basic raison d'etre is something you can agree on--that men and women should have equal rights, that they should be paid equally for equal work, that laws should account for their differences in order to encourage individual success and, in the end, produce maximum return on those laws for the society as a whole, etc, etc, etc--don't you think your energy would be better spent in making sure that it actually becomes a reality that we don't have to argue over?
Because everywhere I look, I can find examples of this, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that someone would simply deny it occurs.
I really have to address this separately.
No, I believe that this is already a reality. As much as you may be able to see examples of this, I can not (unless you wish to count the studies that I think are actually divorced from the reality you support).
I honestly think that the differences are simply either not there or are easily accounted for.
But I will give you a couple of examples and you tell me what you think is fair.
1. Case study A includes in its data two Librarians at the same Library (Stacey and Gary) Gary earns $45000 to Stacey's $30000. The study cites the difference in the statistics as a 50% difference in pay. It does not mention that whilst they both do the same work, Gary works full-time and Stacey works Part-time.
2. Case Study B includes data on two Teachers, John and Mary are both young and just out of Teacher's college and in public schools but John earns $10000 a year more than Mary. The study cites that he earns a 20% more based on their base $40000 salary AND his $10000 remote living allowance paid to his for living in a remote desert community
3. Case study C includes in its data two Spot Welders working for the same company (Lisa and Bruce) Gary earns $100000 to Stacey's $60000. The study cites the difference in the statistics as a $40000 difference in pay. It does not mention that whilst they both do the same work, Bruce works full-time on an Oil Rig and is paid a lot of danger money and shift allowance, Lisa work 5 minutes from home.
4. Case study D includes in its data two Office Workers Bob and Jan. Bob earns $80000 whilst Jan earns $70000. The study cites the difference in the statistics as a $10000% difference in pay. It does not mention that whilst they both do the same work, Bob volunteers for overtime and Saturday work whilst Jan does her obligatory hours only.
Now, Odeon, look at the above examples.
IF these are similar to what is behind the figures cited in case studies then rattling sabres and chasing the red herring of unequal pay for equal work thing is not going to work. IF the above is representative AND IF it is still a concern, then do you think the answer would be to boost women's base pay by 15% whilst not doing the same for men?
-
Are those actually case studies or did you pull them out of your ass?
Why does every example you give involve men working harder than women? Do you really think women are as a whole that passive and lazy?
-
I think in issues such as this, where the numbers seem to not in themselves stand up to any real scrutiny, there HAS to be explanations given.
What I mean to say is that there is a world of difference between the conversation around the following (hypothetical examples to follow)
"The average base wage for men and women is $60000 but men have consistently bought hone an average of $69000 due to greater voluntary overtime, danger money, shift allowance, remote location money, etc."
AND
"The average total gross pay between men and women is different by $9000 with women earning just $60000 and $69000"
Again, every made-up example you give involves women just doing the basics and men doing all kinds of extras. It's starting to sound pretty insulting. While your argument seems to be "there must be a rational explanation for everything". I'm sure causes can be identified in any case. That doesn't mean the cause will always be "men are working harder in some way". Your bias is massive.
That is exactly the message it seems and IF I don't swallow it and say "It really makes no sense that the employers systematically would expose themselves like that and in the event that they did, they would surely employ more women (perhaps to save for their legal fees). There has to be something wrong with what I am being fed as a unquestionable truth", then I am being told, "NO studies prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and are infallible".
Does this sound right to you?
No.
It is fine to expose yourself if you know the weight of the system is on your side. You seem to be assuming that corruption does not play a factor. So long as the courts are as dominated by gender imbalance as the workplace, there is little for rich CEO's who can afford expensive lawyers to worry about.
-
New twist for you all to argue about:
http://www.voxeu.org/article/do-employers-discriminate-female-dominated-occupations (http://www.voxeu.org/article/do-employers-discriminate-female-dominated-occupations)
I also remember posting a link to a study (in another thread here) that showed women in the 20's or something were earning more than men.
-
Are those actually case studies or did you pull them out of your ass?
Why does every example you give involve men working harder than women? Do you really think women are as a whole that passive and lazy?
Does every example I gave involve men working harder than women?
In the case of overtime it shows a man working longer hours than his female counterpart (though not necessarily harder) and same goes for part time and full time work.
IN the case of the teacher having remote location allowance, it says nothing about how hard he works as to where he chooses to work
In the case of the danger money, again his location points to him being at risk (which may or may not mean he would be working harder than his female counterpart, just that he is at danger whilst doing so).
So by all means from what I said which part of any of that states, implies or infers that women are lazy or passive and show me which part of what I said points to men working harder.
-
I think in issues such as this, where the numbers seem to not in themselves stand up to any real scrutiny, there HAS to be explanations given.
What I mean to say is that there is a world of difference between the conversation around the following (hypothetical examples to follow)
"The average base wage for men and women is $60000 but men have consistently bought hone an average of $69000 due to greater voluntary overtime, danger money, shift allowance, remote location money, etc."
AND
"The average total gross pay between men and women is different by $9000 with women earning just $60000 and $69000"
Again, every made-up example you give involves women just doing the basics and men doing all kinds of extras. It's starting to sound pretty insulting. While your argument seems to be "there must be a rational explanation for everything". I'm sure causes can be identified in any case. That doesn't mean the cause will always be "men are working harder in some way". Your bias is massive.
That is exactly the message it seems and IF I don't swallow it and say "It really makes no sense that the employers systematically would expose themselves like that and in the event that they did, they would surely employ more women (perhaps to save for their legal fees). There has to be something wrong with what I am being fed as a unquestionable truth", then I am being told, "NO studies prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and are infallible".
Does this sound right to you?
No.
It is fine to expose yourself if you know the weight of the system is on your side. You seem to be assuming that corruption does not play a factor. So long as the courts are as dominated by gender imbalance as the workplace, there is little for rich CEO's who can afford expensive lawyers to worry about.
Courts do not favour men over women. If it were this simple a proposition then the crisis in the family courts for men would not be what it is. I am more than happy to entertain that there may be some employers that are wanting to stick their necks out and who are chauvinists and want to employ men over women. I am sure there may be a handful of employers out there like that. But that is not what you are trying to have me believe.
If I understand it, you would say that the employers would prefer to hire men and at a pay rate higher than what they could otherwise employ women and that this is systematic through the entire workforce and that this (though completely against the law) is not prosecuted against.
This is not and could not be a case of one or two bad eggs. You realise this. For the percentages to favour men across the whole of the Australian workforce at 15% it HAS to be so marked and so extreme as to be completely systematic.............OR wrong.
This is where I have come into it.
Now because trying to extrapolate possible causes I look for how figures could be misused to provide a higher result. I have to look not at motive, that is easily enough understood (even if there was not a massive agenda to support such results, looking beyond gross wage is a hard caper) but at what may be the difference between two pays a man and a woman IF they are paid the same as they are require to by law and IF there is a different gross wage.
I can tell you that the person who washes your windows in your office (from the outside), is ridiculously higher chance of being male and being paid highly being so. I can tell you that the percentages for men and women in oil rigs does not favour women and even the laundry staff there are paid phenomenal rates in comparison. I can tell you that the number of young men compared to young women attracted to work for higher wages in the mines is hugely favouring the men in applicants.
All of this may affect your sensibilities Pyraxis. You may feel that this is some slight against you. It is not. But tell me if what I wrote about these jobs is true or not. If it is true then tell me if you consider that comparing a oil rig laundry staff
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/laundry-staff-on-420k-a-year/story-e6frfmci-1226027858419 (http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/laundry-staff-on-420k-a-year/story-e6frfmci-1226027858419)
with any other laundry staff anywhere in metropolitan Australia and there will be a substantial difference. If the difference between men and women favour the man here in who is prepared to choose to work on the rig, then ANY head to head comparison as to who is paid more for laundry is going to on average favour the man.
I know that one example does not make 15% BUT if we stack up these example over and over then eventually we get to a stage where it makes sense. That is what I want because the alternative doesn't.
The problem is, IF I am right and IF what I said more readily accounts for the difference and it does simply come down to choices, there would not be the argument that women are underpaid in society still. Nor would it be that employers do not value women as much. That society is favouring men in employment. It would all come down to women are making choices that impact on the amount of take home income they receive. That is a harder thing to argue.
We could say "Hey if a women decides she wants to work part time because she wants to be able to pick up and drop off her children and spend time with them after work (as many do), maybe she feels a social pressure to do so that her husband doesn't", maybe that may be true. If we said that "A young bloke working remotely and getting paid higher money to do so is less less likely to attract young females because of perception of safety and such", this may or may not be true. But whilst these are debating points unto themselves, they do not quite have the "choicelessness" of "men are paid more than women".
Every job I have worked inI have as many do I guess expressly compared my pay rate and my earning with my closest colleagues and in every instance, I have had the same base rate where I have been in the same position as the women next to me. I have often done far more overtime and earned far more in commission BUT the base rate and the tax rate has always been identical.
I am looking for answers and explaining my proposition and my reasoning. You do not agree and that is obvious. You feel insulted and that was not my intent.
-
I generalized a bunch of specific explanations. Do you want to argue about whether there is any inference in them or not? That runs into the same thing that you seem to object to about these studies. You'll accept one specific example of something but when it comes to describing trends from a set of examples, you reject the conclusions. Is your problem with the form of the argument or with the specific conclusions drawn?
-
I generalized a bunch of specific explanations. Do you want to argue about whether there is any inference in them or not? That runs into the same thing that you seem to object to about these studies. You'll accept one specific example of something but when it comes to describing trends from a set of examples, you reject the conclusions. Is your problem with the form of the argument or with the specific conclusions drawn?
I would have thought that I explained the problem I had with the position, pretty clearly.
If you received report after report saying that .... I dunno, one in every three women was a murderer, would you say "Wow one in three?" then get nervy with every woman you meet thinking that there is a high probability that "She is the one". When in a setting with 15 women, you distance yourself in case one of the five goes crazy? Or would you say "OK there are a lot of these reports BUT I think that there is a better explanation than the one most obvious. Maybe the figures are wrong? Maybe the methodology is incorrect? Maybe the definitions are incorrect? Maybe there is a specific reason why people want to draw such a bizarre conclusion? Maybe the pool of data they are drawing on is incorrect or corrupted"
If you took the latter position, I would say this was a reasonable position, regardless of how many case studies showed up supporting the erroneous conclusion. Now if you mentioned these case studies to me, I would snort in derision too. I would not say "But c'mon Py, the case studies can not all be wrong".
But OK, you ask what is my concern? In this instance, we are lead to believe that the difference in what men and women earn for the same job is 15% in favour of men.
15% is not 50%. It is a much smaller figure. In fact approx $87 to every $100. A small injustice? Getting better but a ways to go to equality? Patriarchy giving ground?
All of this well and good and no doubt a percentage which suits certain agendas. But putting that 15% into practice
11 600 000 Australians working of which half are women. So on average 5 800 000 of those people are getting underpaid by 15%. That is not as peanuts as it sounds. The average salary in Australia is $72800. So on raw math (taking into account this is a full time salary and not all the 5 800 000 will be full time workers (approximately 50% are not) so ($72800 x 0.15 x 2 900 000) $31 668 000 000 is how much the black hat employers can rob women of money WITHOUT being systematically bent over by trade unions and a law court geared in their favour notwithstanding the fact that the employers would be very blatantly breaking the law in doing so and often leaving the very keys to such a fall in the hands of what would appear female dominated Human resource sector (not to mention the fact that they continue to hire men who would apparently cost them more for the privilege of doing the same job
$31.668 trillion. That is not peanuts. That is not a few rogue employers, nor old boys club nor a few dyed in the wool chauvinists in positions of unearned and undeserved power. To get a return to reflect this would be in the 0.5% range. THAT would be believable and even then an embarrassing admission. By for 15% to be able to be entertained we have to believe a few things NOT:
15% is not 50%. It is a much smaller figure. In fact approx $87 to every $100. A small injustice? Getting better but a ways to go to equality? Patriarchy giving ground?
All of this well and good and no doubt a percentage which suits certain agendas. But putting that 15% into practice
But that the majority (at least) if not ALL workplaces in Australia contribute to such a discrepancy. That is the only conclusion to draw, with these figures ($31.668 trillion).....unless
OK there are a lot of these reports BUT I think that there is a better explanation than the one most obvious. Maybe the figures are wrong? Maybe the methodology is incorrect? Maybe the definitions are incorrect? Maybe there is a specific reason why people want to draw such a bizarre conclusion? Maybe the pool of data they are drawing on is incorrect or corrupted"
In the event that the industries being compared are different, the job status (part time to full time), location compared (remote to local), Overtime and shift allowance compared with Gross pays without that extra work done, and the like, you are not comparing like with like and you are being disingenuous if you are.
It s easy to do and to draw conclusions on such things. Like the whole "lumping in" of smacking a child with "child abuse/child violence" and then using the result of studies on child abuse/child violence to draw statistics which favour a conclusion. Something like if child a is taken to with a baseball bat and ends up in hospital and child two gets a smack on his bottom when he is naughty. Then of this imaginary sample of two, 50% of the sample called "Children who are abused" are later shown to have psychological scarring and high anxiety and criminal tendencies. We then could use this sample to make a statement of 50% of children who have any physical discipline become basket cases psychologically and tend towards criminal behaviour, therefore smacking children...
It is dishonest. Blatantly. But it is an interesting trick that without the benefit of looking through the numerous case studies do we get an idea of what the trick is and how they all manage to get the same result. Then we have to understand why the trick? It usually comes down to a social change or a social movement. A pointed attempt to elicit a change (good or bad) and a want to paint a picture whilst looking impartial.
Pyraxis, you are about the most contrary person i know and if anyone would appreciate this objection to the three card trick, I would have thought this person would be you. I would have thought it would have gone against your core to have a movement seek to use the public as sheep. Well I would have expected that of you, Lit and Rage. It looks like i was right with Rage. Lit, I am not so sure about.
-
Pyraxis is not being contrary in this case, mate, not the way I see it, and I've been at the receiving end on more occasions than I can remember. She, it would seem, is as baffled as I am.
As for breaking against the law: yes, assuming that your laws are anything like ours (and I believe they are), I'd say there's probably a lot of that. Don't you think it is something that should be investigated?
As for your examples: why should I address them when you dismiss real-life numbers? The examples (and correct me if I'm wrong) are something you came up with. You also link to one specific case and ask us to accept it while you, at the same time, ignore the several independent studies.
Oh, and if you dismiss the independent studies all over the globe, then how do you account for them? What do they do wrong? Are you seriously suggesting that every single one ignores every hard-working man and every part-time woman when collecting their statistics? Really? Or is it that they aren't independent at all, that there is a feminist conspiracy? We are NOT talking about a fictitious one-in-every-three-women-is-a-murderer case, we are talking about actual numbers.
Sorry, mate, but your arguments do not add up. I don't see why we are still having this discussion.
-
Ok yeah I was in a contrary mood yesterday and felt like arguing. But Al, I still don't get what you're basing your beliefs on aside from wanting to rebel against a feminist agenda.
I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp. I'm not asking you to accept the full beliefs that are packaged as the feminist agenda. I certainly don't think people should be sheep.
I agree studies should be taken with a skeptical eye, especially when it's a controversial issue and there are lots of contradictory studies.
I'm not even sure why I care what you think about the matter, since you're not personally in a position to affect the jobs of myself or any women I know who might be underpaid.
-
Yes I WOULD love an investigation and conversely I think there will be every effort to not have an investigation into it.
I am a big believer in fair. They may well get a couple of of businesses acting illegally. I do not believe bad behaviour should be anything but exposed.
How funny would it be for them to do this investigation, Australia wide into every business (in wanting to find this 15% difference and fix it) and come back with 0.25% instead of 15% figures? What happens then? What happens when Australia asks the obvious question?
Yes I would like to see an investigation.
There may well be bias in these "independent case studies" BUT there is definite interest in a positive result.
There has literally been industries built around women's rights. The two biggest arguments against equal treatment and fairness around women is equal representation in the boardrooms and equal pay. I think that the equal pay is the bigger issue because most men are not able to get into the boardroom either, it is real 1%'er issue. Can you imagine that a pubic full-scale investigation reaping a complete discrediting of all previous studies? How would something like this be explained away?
Personally I do not see it ever getting investigated and if it did I do not think it would be public or transparent. I think whilst they can keep the social problem shoved into people's face, and blame workforces and of course the men that run them to be underpaying women 31 trillion dollars, why would you risk exposing that this is not true?
If it was true, then absolutely the explorers would need to be fired and jailed and so on. IF it was true. I contest that it is not and that studies implying it is, are wrong.
-
This thread is much too long for the number of posts in it. :nerd!: :P
-
I think we've probably covered this issue by now. Just one thing you said, Al, that I wish to comment on:
most men are not able to get into the boardroom either
Most people are not able to get into the boardroom, full stop. But most of the few that do are men.
Oh, and I agree with you and Py--there is a feminist agenda, obviously. I very much doubt it is comparable in strength with the old boy's club as of yet, however. Certainly, while I'm sure both parties would like to see the numbers skewed in their favour, I'm pretty sure the latter currently has the advantage.
-
Oh, and if you dismiss the independent studies all over the globe, then how do you account for them? What do they do wrong? Are you seriously suggesting that every single one ignores every hard-working man and every part-time woman when collecting their statistics? Really? Or is it that they aren't independent at all, that there is a feminist conspiracy? We are NOT talking about a fictitious one-in-every-three-women-is-a-murderer case, we are talking about actual numbers.
Sorry, mate, but your arguments do not add up. I don't see why we are still having this discussion.
Sorry I had only just really seen that you were asking me to say as to how statistically can get messed up.
Well...I did give the example of children of child abuse and child violence being lumped in with statistics on children who have their bottoms smacked for being naughty.
Now regardless of what you think of this personally, where you are drawing from a well of children beaten with chains and bats and punched, then the conclusions you can draw from this well are pretty horrendous. You do not NEED to then say "Well hang on the statistics you are quoting at me as applies to violent parents or whatever, I do not think bear ANY relation to the child who gets a smacked bottom. I am sure they are NOT at any greater risk of a child who does not get smacked BUT I agree that a child beaten with chains and bats is going to be screwed."
"No", you say, "this case study (of which the children that get a smack on the bottom are a part) shows that they too are part of the average risk because the percentage is evenly divided amoung the participants. These are statistics and therefore they can not be misrepresented"
You HAVE to be able to see the problem there.
At present there is a social push for people to work longer and retire later if at all. Already there are "impartial" articles and the begin rumblings of what a terrific idea it is for people to work longer and how working older people are better off in so many ways and so on.
Case studies will follow if they have not already. We sheep nod and bah along appropriately.
BUT....I know that for every spritely 90 year old there is countless old men and some who age is not so kind with. People who after the age of about retirement age get "muddled", "slower", "frail", and are subject to debilitating health problems.
The powers that be would have us overlook this and say such things as "retirement as a concept, is relatively a new concept. In the past people worked through their lives...."
It is a nice bit of bullshit line to sell to try to convince the baby boomer to work tip they drop and perhaps put their lives and others at risk to save on pension money.
I have no doubt IF the case studies are not here, they will be soon and they will all be uniform in their agreement and state that old people should keep working and they all will be "independent and impartial".
But as for the way the statistics in the labour force can be skewed? (Note they only have to make one or two errors)
* Full-time vs Part time.
* Job Industry vs Job Industry (For example a cleaner in Community and Health sector can not compete with the wage of that in Mining)
* Danger money component not assessed in salaries
* Negotiated salaries (not subject to direct comparison as one person asking and demanding more or being compared to a person on similar role in smaller opposing company is likely to reflect what company can afford)
* Overtime being not factored in
* Shift Allowance
* Remote location allowance.
Many of these things may well favour men IF they choose to do them.
If a man is silly enough to do high rise window washing and finds himself in a high paid male dominated industry, it does not have anything to do with unfairness.
If men are more keen to be contractors in War torn areas and oil rigs and get paid big bucks accordingly.....fair call.
If in all these aspects they do not take steps to take these things into account then it is not fair comparisons and every case study relying on such things is inherently flawed.
Worse still it shows a a bottom-line differential without alluding as to what may be the causes and so WE have to reach conclusions and the obvious would be that employers underpay women unfairly and for exactly the same job.
Start knocking these things above, over and that difference will start to evaporate.
-
I think we've probably covered this issue by now. Just one thing you said, Al, that I wish to comment on:
most men are not able to get into the boardroom either
Most people are not able to get into the boardroom, full stop. But most of the few that do are men.
Oh, and I agree with you and Py--there is a feminist agenda, obviously. I very much doubt it is comparable in strength with the old boy's club as of yet, however. Certainly, while I'm sure both parties would like to see the numbers skewed in their favour, I'm pretty sure the latter currently has the advantage.
I on the other hand think that the Old Boy's Club is far less pervasive and not nearly as strong as the feminists. I tend to think of the Old Boy's Club as I do politicians. I think of them as privileged suits with no idea about the world, gifted with the best education and University money could buy and alternatively pissing into each other's pockets or stabbing each other in the back for advantage. People to which values and morals are ambivalent things not to stand behind but to use towards agendas.
I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".
IN so far as this seems rather condemning, I do not think it favours the Old Boy's Club. I would definitely say the follow on question about boardrooms certainly doesn't favour women (and partially through their own choices) but maybe through choices from the Old Boy's Club BUT as we said, most men do not get into the boardroom either so I think that is their area of influence. It is daily seen and hangs around them like a bad fart
Feminism in my mind is much more subversive and pervasive. A lot of this is based around personal observation and social acceptances and lies told. The kind of things not inferred by an old boys club.
I also do not like that Feminism relies so heavily on victimhood. Men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed. I do not like the way in recent times men are being typecast in social media as either incompetent, stupid, violent, dispensable, dependent. clueless, or whatever. Women on the other hand are being typecast as "together", sassy, smart, intelligent, independent and so on. It is none too subtle. I do not like that the gender studies courses that are in the university are really just Feminist propaganda sessions run and graded by Feminist radicals. I do not like how men are considered of no real value except for child support cheque in Divorce Courts. I do not like how in many countries, there isa power of veto for studies, handed over from one Government Department to the next because that representative is Minister of Women's Studies (or its equivalent in whichever country) and that they have to block info ration on the basis that they consider it is not in women's interests or harmful to women. I do not like how feminists are up in arms about female genital mutilation but will laugh and applaud a woman cutting off a man's dick for not marrying her. I do not like how Mens Rights Organisations trying to get fundings for beds for battered males will receive no government funding and have to put up with protests from feminist groups and be accused of stealing resources and supporting rape and violence against women (how does that work? They say that the men involved want to to be a consideration that if a man bruises his knuckles on the face of a women he assaults...but that was never the case and it is rather a pathetic indictment. Men are victims of domestic abuse in approximately 45%-50% numbers apparently)
Yes I thin that the feminism worms have dined pretty freely and pretty well and as much as I despise and detest the Old Boy's Club I think they are not as bad as the Feminists. I think the worse crime though of Feminists is that they (in another lie) pretend it is all about equality and in a brilliant tactic, get people to nod their collective heads at them. "yes, we believe in equality, therefore we too are feminists. Feminism = Good. If Feminism = Bad then we blame the radicals. We like feminism because we are good people"
It is nauseating.
-
I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".
I would pay good money to see that. :green:
But we gotta have something to do with the feminists. I have the feeling that if you dumped them in a gladiator pit, they'd try to organize a sit-down strike. Something more subtle and pervasive is needed.
-
I have developed a disdain for them. I would like them almost to a man to be herded into a big gladiator pit with a knife and a shield and say "Hey dude, you are up against your weekend golfing partner".
I would pay good money to see that. :green:
But we gotta have something to do with the feminists. I have the feeling that if you dumped them in a gladiator pit, they'd try to organize a sit-down strike. Something more subtle and pervasive is needed.
Agreed +1
I think on something you said here about the not sure why it would matter to you either way and got me reflecting on why it might matter to me.
I have a big thing for "fair". I believe in the concept of a fair go for all.
The other thing is I do not want my girl either held back nor taught that her Dad and her brother and those men in her life are inconsequential. I do not want my boy to be manipulate and done over by a society that places no worth on his gender.
Not to say my of these things are or will ever be absolutes but I would not see them as such if I could help it or at least point out when I believe I see it
-
My father is a geek and an academic, kind of opposite to the rough backcountry man who lives out the tradition of protecting and providing for the women in his life. He was a provider but not in a forceful way and he made sure I learned how to provide for myself. Being able to take care of myself doesn't make me think men are inconsequential. Actually I have a lot of respect for men who can protect on a physical level as well as financial.
I see it as more of a generational problem than a gender one. A lot of the young people who came of age in the recession have a hard time providing for even themselves, let alone a family. There's the stereotype of the impotent loser in his parents' basement, who doesn't have any pride in being a man. But there are also girls who work hard, do everything "right", and then are betrayed when it doesn't seem to lead to success in adulthood as they were taught it would. Meanwhile the parents from the older generation think they are lazy for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
In the USA at least, social mobility is at an extreme low. Is it the same in Australia? It does not strike me as very "fair".
-
My father is a geek and an academic, kind of opposite to the rough backcountry man who lives out the tradition of protecting and providing for the women in his life. He was a provider but not in a forceful way and he made sure I learned how to provide for myself. Being able to take care of myself doesn't make me think men are inconsequential. Actually I have a lot of respect for men who can protect on a physical level as well as financial.
I see it as more of a generational problem than a gender one. A lot of the young people who came of age in the recession have a hard time providing for even themselves, let alone a family. There's the stereotype of the impotent loser in his parents' basement, who doesn't have any pride in being a man. But there are also girls who work hard, do everything "right", and then are betrayed when it doesn't seem to lead to success in adulthood as they were taught it would. Meanwhile the parents from the older generation think they are lazy for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
In the USA at least, social mobility is at an extreme low. Is it the same in Australia? It does not strike me as very "fair".
I think that the problem if I can at all stereotype, is that the teenage to early twenties are generally trying to simultaneously get a job (career) and try out the dating scene. Then suddenly man and woman are in some sort of committed relationship and what? Suddenly is the realisation of a want to have children and time running out to make sure that the person is the right person to have children with, that the job is the right job or career path and that a bucketload of money needs to be starting to be saved. Even if this all can be done, children mean time out from work and a balance of home and family life and not to mention bigger expenses.
Traditionally this has fallen on the man to step up and say "OK I got this covered. I will make this as painless as possible and as stress free as possible on you (the lady) and if I have to do the very things needed to earn extra money to look after the family, I will"
I personally remember not with much pleasure, working 12 hours shifts 6 days a week whilst having a pregnant wife so that we would be able to avoid the top of the range private hospital to birth my son.
I suspect that many women on some level actually welcome this response. They are knocked up and scared about the future and having a partner saying "Got this covered" i maybe not empowering but certainly piece of mind. Some may well say "No, that is not fair. How about we both work towards this and both do the harder yards?". That is OK too. Whatever is best for the family.
I suspect that once the kids come about (like with my kids) there is the inoculations, check ups, playgroup, playdates and whatever that many recent mothers feel a far greater drawing to and importance than keeping on top of the getting back to work. These things are shelved. The Dads? They work harder and longer hours at whatever their job is. Trying to cement the efforts they started making back in the past.
Of course in some instances, the time out of the workforce is shorter for women, sometimes through necessity and sometimes through need. It seems to me though, so very often, once this is experienced, "we can survive on his pay" mindset is a difficult one to shake. The whether to do part time rather than full-time work. Whether to find a job that is more family friendly or flexible in hours or less stressful become bigger considerations that a "career" and the abstract question of when to have another child.
The men generally do not get any of this. Any action or time off work or job change or extra children is simply more money the family needs and better budgeting and more hours or negotiating higher salary or getting that higher position.
There can be a greater balance and none of these are absolutes. I do not think any of the above ideas are bad or come from bad places or are even the only way to go. I know that the underclass ted not to have these choices and are perpetually trapped in a cycle of government handouts. I know the very rich tend not to have the same financial demands or sacrifices of choices.
Sometimes men stay at home and be the house husband. Sometimes the man or woman works from home and factors kids around this. Sometimes both manage with the help of extended family and or child minding and the such.
With this though there is a dampening on social mobility . Once kids are grown up, the adults find themselves often defined and held back by age at a time where they actually have the time to ramp up their career potential.
Not all of the above is "fair" in the sense of life often is not "fair" BUT I do think giving people an equal chance to make do is optimal. The hoarding of social capital and exclusion of one person, creed, religion, gender, race, culture fem being able to get on and have a fair go.
-
Ok yeah I was in a contrary mood yesterday and felt like arguing. But Al, I still don't get what you're basing your beliefs on aside from wanting to rebel against a feminist agenda.
I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp. I'm not asking you to accept the full beliefs that are packaged as the feminist agenda. I certainly don't think people should be sheep.
I agree studies should be taken with a skeptical eye, especially when it's a controversial issue and there are lots of contradictory studies.
I'm not even sure why I care what you think about the matter, since you're not personally in a position to affect the jobs of myself or any women I know who might be underpaid.
I agree there's a feminist agenda. I think we established there's an old boys' club as well. I don't stand in either camp.
I feel exactly the same. I want to cut down all their stupid little treehouses, burn them, and laugh in their faces for thinking they're more special than another gender or race.
I think its ALL stupid. I hate feminism, I hate male rights advocates, I hate atheism plus, I hate the KKK(yeah I see the KKK and sex equality groups as exactly the same thing), I hate muslim extremists (I hate religion in general). I hate them all. They're all stupid little monkeys flinging shit at each other, each one just as primitive and childish as the other.
If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.
-
If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.
Would they call it Planet Earth?
-
If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.
Would they call it Planet Earth?
:laugh:
-
Hmm.
If there were a lot of independent studies that made a mess out of the statistics they used, statistically (pun intended) the studies would point in all directions. We'd not have a situation where most of these independent studies would point in the same general one.
Unless they weren't independent, of course, in which case the scale of conspiracy required would make the JFK shooting look like bad daytime TV.
It doesn't add up. Sorry, Al.
-
Hmm.
If there were a lot of independent studies that made a mess out of the statistics they used, statistically (pun intended) the studies would point in all directions. We'd not have a situation where most of these independent studies would point in the same general one.
Unless they weren't independent, of course, in which case the scale of conspiracy required would make the JFK shooting look like bad daytime TV.
It doesn't add up. Sorry, Al.
Not at all.
You are an independent researcher. You are there to do a case study.
Due to the limitations of privacy and sheer raw data, you are given what information?
Gender, gross salary, rough job clarification, job industry, state
Maybe whether it is full time or part time
Again, the questions of such elements as are influenced by personal choice are job desirability and popularity, remote location, overtime, danger money or the like.
With the same limited information, how are you going to get meaningful information?
So yes 100% the same errors could be committed again and again with no one able to go deeper
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
-
If I had my way, they'd all be put in the same gigantic prison together for a couple of years so they would be forced to live with each other for an extended period of time.
Would they call it Planet Earth?
LOL no. It would have to be smaller than the earth. They have to have no choice but to engage with one another, and get along.
Fighting is cool, but personal. Like fucking. Its between the fighter and the fightee, and doesn't spill on to people that aren't involved you see?
This is not the way things are currently done. Some fights between as little as two people can effect the entire global population.
-
I don't know for certain about the salary difference. I know the statistics show that it's likely, but I don't know a socially acceptable way to find out the salary of everyone at the company with the same job title. I'm outside the rumor circles because I barely socialize.
I do know that about 95% of the executives are male.
A couple years ago when we were implementing a feature for players to put their own faces on their custom characters in the game we were making, I brought up the question of what female players would do. (The characters in that game were traditionally male.) It was quickly decided that resources couldn't be spared to implement a female option. Last year the question came up of rebuilding the randomizer that populates the crowds. Again, though every character was being remodeled, it was decided that it was too much effort to make some of them female.
It's decisions like that which lead me to suspect that equalizing glass-ceiling type issues just isn't on the agenda. If there were hard proof, of course there could be lawsuits and stuff, but what makes it insidious is that there isn't any hard proof, it's a long series of small inconsequential decisions.
I've seen it firsthand. They are sometimes very sneaky about it, excusing themselves with "different work descriptions" and "different levels of experience", but also relying on the fact that here, at least, salaries are frequently individually negotiated and so comparing numbers is made difficult.
Equal pay for equal work doesn't sound complicated but unless your work description--and your work--is very basic, it's easy to dodge.
Found out something "interesting" at work. The "new" men have got different contracts from the "new" women. The women have zero hour contracts, the men have contracts with their hours described in them.
In pay, it makes no difference, they both get minimal wages. But, the moment the company needs to cut back on working hours, they can cut back on the women with ease, they are entitled to zero hours a week, and every hour on top of that is a bonus. The men, if the company wants to cut back on that, they will have to take legal steps to be able to do so.
Does this mean the men are evil? That men are evil by default? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that this is a case that shows feminism is not done yet, yes, it does. Companies get away with treating a group different from another group, because the women hired still are so grateful that they get a job.
So, management exploits the option to treat different to their own advantage.
Management, in this case, consists of mainly women. Doesn't change the fact that this is a thing feminism still needs to point out.
-
It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.
-
In my male dominated workplace, paternity leave is the same amount of time as maternity leave, and most guys choose to take it when they have the option. It hasn't helped some of the other inequalities, but it has helped that one.
Good for your workplace.
Lots of men have a really hard time getting paternity leave here. Or to negotiate with their boss to work a day a week less. For women that is easier, so, it is the women staying at home more, if total daycare is not what the couple wants. And there the income difference between men and women has a new reason to be different. Men have it harder to negotiate parenting time.
-
I will start with these mentions of "recent times".
In days of old, women did not work, men did.
In days of old, women worked. They had to, unless they were part of a very rich family, that could manage to live without the women participating in making a living. Families that rich, one may wonder how much work the men did do also.
Most people were "lower" class. For most living was about surviving. Women worked, taking a break to give birth, a break that could sometimes be not more than just a few hours. Kids that survived would work too.
The romantic idea of a man providing for his family, and his family living life comfortably while dad brought home the bacon is a modern idea.
-
It doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.
Maybe I will rant some more, one day, in a not visible for all part of the forum.
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.
:lol1:
I was in a big store couple of weeks ago. There was a mother complaining that she had to go home, because her toddler was not allowed to use the toilet in that store.
That made me think of my mother, shopping with a grandchild, buying kids clothes. Kid had to pee, it was not allowed. My mum answered that she was a client, with another kid in the fitting room, and that she had no time getting home or to a restaurant in time, so that she would then let the kid just pee where it stood. Amazing how fast the toilet was available after that.
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.
:lol1:
I was in a big store couple of weeks ago. There was a mother complaining that she had to go home, because her toddler was not allowed to use the toilet in that store.
That made me think of my mother, shopping with a grandchild, buying kids clothes. Kid had to pee, it was not allowed. My mum answered that she was a client, with another kid in the fitting room, and that she had no time getting home or to a restaurant in time, so that she would then let the kid just pee where it stood. Amazing how fast the toilet was available after that.
Oh, I didn't explain why that was funny, did I? I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.
I tried to explain that it was less expensive and took less effort to install a urinal, but she didn't believe me. So I pulled out the laptop and actually googled the common price of the materials that would be used to install urinals and full stalls.
She told me to go fuck myself and left. Lol. I've encountered a lot of people like this, and it really seems as if when confronted with facts they react angrily with denials and accusations of having a small penis or being a mysoginist. Its similar to challenging religion.
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
-
Its similar to challenging religion.
it IS religion, if not a belief in a deity, it is definitely "faith"
faith is impossible to argue with, and most politics and ideologies are grounded in faith.
-
Its similar to challenging religion.
it IS religion, if not a belief in a deity, it is definitely "faith"
faith is impossible to argue with, and most politics and ideologies are grounded in faith.
Yes, yes they are. Its very irritating. Republicans, democrats, feminists, black panthers, radical muslims, Christians, etc.
They're all a serious problem.
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
Or take the recent case in India, where a girl sought help at a police station only to be raped there. Almost raped, I suppose the uniformed people might say. >:(
-
Read the the darkest possible side of "They were almost raped" in the paper few days ago.
An article starting with the story about an Iraqi-Kurdistan, girl, victim of a gang rape. But, it isn't a real rape, her hymen is still intact, so her family is happy.
At least you're concerned with actual crimes, rather than men having urinals to piss in or something.
:lol1:
I was in a big store couple of weeks ago. There was a mother complaining that she had to go home, because her toddler was not allowed to use the toilet in that store.
That made me think of my mother, shopping with a grandchild, buying kids clothes. Kid had to pee, it was not allowed. My mum answered that she was a client, with another kid in the fitting room, and that she had no time getting home or to a restaurant in time, so that she would then let the kid just pee where it stood. Amazing how fast the toilet was available after that.
Oh, I didn't explain why that was funny, did I? I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.
I tried to explain that it was less expensive and took less effort to install a urinal, but she didn't believe me. So I pulled out the laptop and actually googled the common price of the materials that would be used to install urinals and full stalls.
She told me to go fuck myself and left. Lol. I've encountered a lot of people like this, and it really seems as if when confronted with facts they react angrily with denials and accusations of having a small penis or being a mysoginist. Its similar to challenging religion.
For the life of me, I can't understand why they'd want to hurt their cause like that.
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
You still place very little faith in statisticians.
Just did some quick googling about the methods. This paper (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/walby-modellinggenderpaygapswp17.pdf) includes some info. I haven't read it all, I just glanced through it to see if they explain their methods, which is what I was after.
There are other papers like it but I don't have the time, right now.
-
Its similar to challenging religion.
it IS religion, if not a belief in a deity, it is definitely "faith"
faith is impossible to argue with, and most politics and ideologies are grounded in faith.
Yes, yes they are. Its very irritating. Republicans, democrats, feminists, black panthers, radical muslims, Christians, etc.
They're all a serious problem.
Atheists, too. Basically everyone who claims to know what the problem is. :P
-
Its similar to challenging religion.
it IS religion, if not a belief in a deity, it is definitely "faith"
faith is impossible to argue with, and most politics and ideologies are grounded in faith.
Yes, yes they are. Its very irritating. Republicans, democrats, feminists, black panthers, radical muslims, Christians, etc.
They're all a serious problem.
Atheists, too. Basically everyone who claims to know what the problem is. :P
I don't believe in any kind of god, but i'm not like the guys you're thinking of, O-man. You're thinking of these guys, right?
(http://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/one-vote-for-douchbagger-then.jpg?w=629&h=305)
Yes. They are assholes. Basically they turn atheism itself into religion. I don't really understand myself what the point of that is, but ehh. :apondering:
-
I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.
She wanted a urinal to pee in?
-
I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.
She wanted a urinal to pee in?
YES. What the fuck, right? :laugh:
-
I was having a conversation with this radical feminist once. She brought up that feminism was still necessary because men have neato urinals to piss in whereas women only have toilets and stalls.
She wanted a urinal to pee in?
YES. What the fuck, right? :laugh:
Indeed. :laugh:
-
She could go to China.
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
You still place very little faith in statisticians.
Just did some quick googling about the methods. This paper (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/walby-modellinggenderpaygapswp17.pdf) includes some info. I haven't read it all, I just glanced through it to see if they explain their methods, which is what I was after.
There are other papers like it but I don't have the time, right now.
I read this. I am not impressed. At all.
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including those that concentrate women into particular occupations and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
The reason I am not impressed is that, for all it's statistics we only have to look at "those that concentrate women into particular occupations" and "direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men".
Not only does this tell me that women are making choices of where to work (job choice and industry choice) BUT when they do this "impartial" study uses the loaded terms like "those that concentrate women". What the fuck does concentrate women mean? The employers herd women into a specific job or bar them from working in an industry? That what it looks like BUT I really think it is more about women making choices to work in specific fields that show high female to male ratio. Hence the "concentration". The terminology is loaded and that automatically gets me to say....hang on, if they are loading the terms like this then is this really impartial?
The answer of course is...."No"
It could foreseeable have been re-written thus
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns (That is men tend to stay in continuous employment throughout their lives and reap the benefits for doing so) account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including rigidities that have women seek out specific employment and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms rather than making a choice to work in larger and unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and and choices women make in respect to the type of work women prefer which often does not pay as much as work that men are prepared to do. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
I would say that this basically holds true to what I said from get go, barring of course the holdover of the 8% of women with worse education an therefore notable to apply for jobs needing a higher educational pre-requisite. (I am surprised that there is still a holdover at all).
Not impressed and the pear basically reiterated these points and in the same kind of loading of terms and sought to justify its bias.
But again Odeon, this basically says EXACTLY what I have been saying. If women make the choice about what type of job, how flexible the job, how many hours and what industry and this informs a lower pay........it is NOT discrimination or Patriarchy or anything of the sort. It is personal choice.
Accountability. You see why I place so little faith in Statisticians, now?
BTW this is not trying to say no women make choices that are that of their male counterparts, were that the case there would be a much greater difference.
-
She could go to China.
For real. Again, I tried to explain to her that toilets and stalls were actually more expensive and time consuming to install and maintain, but there was some kind of short circuit there. She refused to accept that and insisted that urinals were some kind of neato super high end patriarchy pisspots and women were being cheated out of them.
The weird thing is, she wasn't a dumbass or anything. We were in the same class, and she was a good student who seemed to be a rational minded sort. I guess the thing that bothers me the most about feminism these days is that it seems to have this weird ass effect on girls. I don't understand it, and it looks to me like an OBSTACLE to equality.
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
You still place very little faith in statisticians.
Just did some quick googling about the methods. This paper (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/walby-modellinggenderpaygapswp17.pdf) includes some info. I haven't read it all, I just glanced through it to see if they explain their methods, which is what I was after.
There are other papers like it but I don't have the time, right now.
I read this. I am not impressed. At all.
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including those that concentrate women into particular occupations and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
The reason I am not impressed is that, for all it's statistics we only have to look at "those that concentrate women into particular occupations" and "direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men".
Not only does this tell me that women are making choices of where to work (job choice and industry choice) BUT when they do this "impartial" study uses the loaded terms like "those that concentrate women". What the fuck does concentrate women mean? The employers herd women into a specific job or bar them from working in an industry? That what it looks like BUT I really think it is more about women making choices to work in specific fields that show high female to male ratio. Hence the "concentration". The terminology is loaded and that automatically gets me to say....hang on, if they are loading the terms like this then is this really impartial?
The answer of course is...."No"
It could foreseeable have been re-written thus
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns (That is men tend to stay in continuous employment throughout their lives and reap the benefits for doing so) account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including rigidities that have women seek out specific employment and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms rather than making a choice to work in larger and unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and and choices women make in respect to the type of work women prefer which often does not pay as much as work that men are prepared to do. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
I would say that this basically holds true to what I said from get go, barring of course the holdover of the 8% of women with worse education an therefore notable to apply for jobs needing a higher educational pre-requisite. (I am surprised that there is still a holdover at all).
Not impressed and the pear basically reiterated these points and in the same kind of loading of terms and sought to justify its bias.
But again Odeon, this basically says EXACTLY what I have been saying. If women make the choice about what type of job, how flexible the job, how many hours and what industry and this informs a lower pay........it is NOT discrimination or Patriarchy or anything of the sort. It is personal choice.
Accountability. You see why I place so little faith in Statisticians, now?
BTW this is not trying to say no women make choices that are that of their male counterparts, were that the case there would be a much greater difference.
You reinterpret and rewrite, and then say it says exactly what you've been saying?
Well, it should, considering what you did.
-
Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
You still place very little faith in statisticians.
Just did some quick googling about the methods. This paper (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/walby-modellinggenderpaygapswp17.pdf) includes some info. I haven't read it all, I just glanced through it to see if they explain their methods, which is what I was after.
There are other papers like it but I don't have the time, right now.
I read this. I am not impressed. At all.
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including those that concentrate women into particular occupations and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
The reason I am not impressed is that, for all it's statistics we only have to look at "those that concentrate women into particular occupations" and "direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men".
Not only does this tell me that women are making choices of where to work (job choice and industry choice) BUT when they do this "impartial" study uses the loaded terms like "those that concentrate women". What the fuck does concentrate women mean? The employers herd women into a specific job or bar them from working in an industry? That what it looks like BUT I really think it is more about women making choices to work in specific fields that show high female to male ratio. Hence the "concentration". The terminology is loaded and that automatically gets me to say....hang on, if they are loading the terms like this then is this really impartial?
The answer of course is...."No"
It could foreseeable have been re-written thus
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns (That is men tend to stay in continuous employment throughout their lives and reap the benefits for doing so) account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including rigidities that have women seek out specific employment and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms rather than making a choice to work in larger and unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and and choices women make in respect to the type of work women prefer which often does not pay as much as work that men are prepared to do. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."
I would say that this basically holds true to what I said from get go, barring of course the holdover of the 8% of women with worse education an therefore notable to apply for jobs needing a higher educational pre-requisite. (I am surprised that there is still a holdover at all).
Not impressed and the pear basically reiterated these points and in the same kind of loading of terms and sought to justify its bias.
But again Odeon, this basically says EXACTLY what I have been saying. If women make the choice about what type of job, how flexible the job, how many hours and what industry and this informs a lower pay........it is NOT discrimination or Patriarchy or anything of the sort. It is personal choice.
Accountability. You see why I place so little faith in Statisticians, now?
BTW this is not trying to say no women make choices that are that of their male counterparts, were that the case there would be a much greater difference.
You reinterpret and rewrite, and then say it says exactly what you've been saying?
Well, it should, considering what you did.
No I didn't.
I "interpreted" Not re-interpreted.
I tried to express that the terms were loaded. I made a bit of an effort to express the "those that concentrate women" is a loaded expression in this apparent attempt at impartial research. Again, how do men "concentrate" women? It sounds to me like (yes my "interpretation") women are making choices to take up jobs in certain industries in greater numbers than men and so this concentrates women in these industries.
It loads the terms to imply that women are forced into these industries (that would seem to be lower paying industries) NOT personal choice. Women DO have choice though. There is no "women on that side men on this side" segregation. You HAVE to allow for the fact that women CAN make informed choice. IF they make a choice to start a job at a smaller firm or a non-unionsed firm, or get a part time position instead of a full time position or if the job is in an industry with a lower base rate of pay compared to other industries......that is entirely their choice and decision.
I would argue the same for a man who decided to do that.
Yet there is a suggestion still that this is unfair.
I re-wrote that piece with the same loaded statements but instead of being biased for women, I made it biased against women.
I could have written it complete devoid of bias but I liked the contrast because it highlights the bias better.
I did not have to reword it to agree with the very things that I said (loaded phrasing or not). It was basically confirming women's choice played a large part and that 8% that I had not counted on for lack of educational qualification as a holdover from days long past for older female employees.
-
Protected classes are bullshit no matter how trendy they are right now. It doesn't matter how good it makes one feel to take part in this sort of behavior, one knows. They know deep down in the back of their mind that their logic is flawed, but they follow the herd because they feel safer or more "acceptable" that way.
Protected classes are bullshit. Classes are bullshit. Its time to grow out of this, folks. Put that toy away, and surrender it to the whole of humanity. Do you really need -that- kind of crap in your identity? What does it do for you? What does it really produce? (other than free shit or special treatment for portions of us, who should be ashamed of it)
-
My cat Link was rolling around in my dirty underwear. It seemed erotic almost. And funny and cute.
-
My cat Link was rolling around in my dirty underwear. It seemed erotic almost. And funny and cute.
Cats are funny like that.
-
There is something about the smell of pee, and cats, idunno what it is
my cat LOVED coming with me to the bathroom, and would go into an - as you say - almost erotic extasis, rolling around on the floor, purring loudly, to what I can only assume to be the thrill of my smell of shit and piss
The only possible explanation I can think of is that - the cat considers you both A TEAM - you and the cat form a tiny hunting party/small family. Cats use urine to mark territory.
The cat usually never sees you pee (never sees you mark territory), so when it finally DOES get to come along, and witness the allmighty human pee, it becomes almost extatic for them - cus you pee for the sake of both. Since humans are much larger creatures, they will also piss that much more - the very ammount of piss being most impressive to a cat :M
Since cats are simpler creatures than humans, intellectually, all this joy just builds into a near sexual emotion, as you fill the whole room with the stench of human-piss.
-
There is something about the smell of pee, and cats, idunno what it is
my cat LOVED coming with me to the bathroom, and would go into an - as you say - almost erotic extasis, rolling around on the floor, purring loudly, to what I can only assume to be the thrill of my smell of shit and piss
The only possible explanation I can think of is that - the cat considers you both A TEAM - you and the cat form a tiny hunting party/small family. Cats use urine to mark territory.
The cat usually never sees you pee (never sees you mark territory), so when it finally DOES get to come along, and witness the allmighty human pee, it becomes almost extatic for them - cus you pee for the sake of both. Since humans are much larger creatures, they will also piss that much more - the very ammount of piss being most impressive to a cat :M
Since cats are simpler creatures than humans, intellectually, all this joy just builds into a near sexual emotion, as you fill the whole room with the stench of human-piss.
:lol1:
I love the logic of this.
:plus:
-
I "interpreted" Not re-interpreted.
Statistics is, to an extent, the art of interpretation. Therefore, anyone rephrasing the interpretation is re-interpreting it.
-
There is something about the smell of pee, and cats, idunno what it is
my cat LOVED coming with me to the bathroom, and would go into an - as you say - almost erotic extasis, rolling around on the floor, purring loudly, to what I can only assume to be the thrill of my smell of shit and piss
The only possible explanation I can think of is that - the cat considers you both A TEAM - you and the cat form a tiny hunting party/small family. Cats use urine to mark territory.
The cat usually never sees you pee (never sees you mark territory), so when it finally DOES get to come along, and witness the allmighty human pee, it becomes almost extatic for them - cus you pee for the sake of both. Since humans are much larger creatures, they will also piss that much more - the very ammount of piss being most impressive to a cat :M
Since cats are simpler creatures than humans, intellectually, all this joy just builds into a near sexual emotion, as you fill the whole room with the stench of human-piss.
That makes a lot of sense, actually.