Quote
There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap
A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.
By CARRIE LUKAS
Tuesday is Equal Pay Day—so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity, which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and others. The day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.
In years past, feminist leaders marked the occasion by rallying outside the U.S. Capitol to decry the pernicious wage gap and call for government action to address systematic discrimination against women. This year will be relatively quiet. Perhaps feminists feel awkward protesting a liberal-dominated government—or perhaps they know that the recent economic downturn has exposed as ridiculous their claims that our economy is ruled by a sexist patriarchy.
The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%. Unemployment fell for both sexes over the past year, but labor force participation (the percentage of working age people employed) also dropped. The participation rate fell more among men (to 70.4% today from 71.4% in March 2010) than women (to 58.3% from 58.8%). That means much of the improvement in unemployment numbers comes from discouraged workers—particularly male ones—giving up their job searches entirely.
Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as teaching, health care and service industries.
Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different unemployment rates, then you shouldn't be surprised by other differences—like differences in average pay.
Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.
The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.
Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.
Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.
Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's.
Should we celebrate the closing of the wage gap? Certainly it's good news that women are increasingly productive workers, but women whose husbands and sons are out of work or under-employed are likely to have a different perspective. After all, many American women wish they could work less, and that they weren't the primary earners for their families.
Few Americans see the economy as a battle between the sexes. They want opportunity to abound so that men and women can find satisfying work situations that meet their unique needs. That—not a day dedicated to manufactured feminist grievances—would be something to celebrate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
Yay! :showoff:
Now can I get a raise?
I just got a raise, my gf still earns 17% more then me.
:(
This is one of the more ridiculous numbers that get tossed around anyway. I was never even clear on what it represented. I was told that women make less for doing the same jobs...but the number they quoted was wages based on similar education levels and not the same jobs...or whatever. And I was never sure what government action was requested since it is already illegal to pay people different amounts based on gender. Were the Feds supposed to make it really really really illegal or something?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2011, 01:46:41 PM
Now can I get a raise?
Once you become a member of the patriarchy you can decide your own pay, along with everyone else's.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
This is one of the more ridiculous numbers that get tossed around anyway. I was never even clear on what it represented. I was told that women make less for doing the same jobs...but the number they quoted was wages based on similar education levels and not the same jobs...or whatever. And I was never sure what government action was requested since it is already illegal to pay people different amounts based on gender. Were the Feds supposed to make it really really really illegal or something?
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
This is one of the more ridiculous numbers that get tossed around anyway. I was never even clear on what it represented. I was told that women make less for doing the same jobs...but the number they quoted was wages based on similar education levels and not the same jobs...or whatever. And I was never sure what government action was requested since it is already illegal to pay people different amounts based on gender. Were the Feds supposed to make it really really really illegal or something?
How dare nurses not make the same as doctors! they do the same job!
Oh well, yay for equality i suppose. somewhere out there there's a female accountant making as shit a pay as i do :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
This is one of the more ridiculous numbers that get tossed around anyway. I was never even clear on what it represented. I was told that women make less for doing the same jobs...but the number they quoted was wages based on similar education levels and not the same jobs...or whatever. And I was never sure what government action was requested since it is already illegal to pay people different amounts based on gender. Were the Feds supposed to make it really really really illegal or something?
When I worked for a credit card bank, we had a highly-paid marketing consultant come in & brief us on economic trends, demographics, etc. Most of it was stuff we already knew, which was bad enough given what we were paying her.
But about 3/4 the way through the presentation she threw up a slide showing disparity in terms of raw income between men & women, not offering up any details as to how each figure breaks down into income/time worked or how male & female salaries compare for similar jobs. Now she could have used that to illustrate a valid point about differences in purchasing power, but no-- she decided to get on her soapbox & preach about how "women are still making less money for the same work." I challenged her to show some actual detailed data to support her claim but she dodged it by saying she was running short on time & had to rush through the rest of the presentation.
We never hired her again, thank God.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
What part of being a father and a career man is easy? :wacko:
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
The arguement is I just do not understand the facts and the more I look into it the more confusing it gets. For every 'women get paid less for the same work' thing I see I see 'men are collapsing! Women are taking over! OH EM GEEE' or 'Women attench college far more than men' or whatever.
So what is the truth? Is this a serious problem or is it already solving itself? I have no idea and the data seems like it is misrepresented by people with an agenda one way or the other.
I understand tackling the issue of parenthood/career path and how biology is a bitch to women in this regard. But that is an entirely different point than 'Women have to work harder to make the same amount' 'women get paid less to do the same job'. That sounds like active discrimination from employers rather than maternity leave and so forth slowing career advancement.
It's about a work style. The system is made for a "man's lifestyle" (preferably a single/gay man who "works hard and plays hard") and not for that of a working mother, for example. Not that I am complaining, being a beneficiary of the system, but that's the problem - if you structure the system in a way that a woman wishing to be a mother has to sacrifice her career to do so, then the argument that she can "work as hard as a man for the same pay" becomes illusory.
Most Western European societies recognize that already.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
It's about a work style. The system is made for a "man's lifestyle" (preferably a single/gay man who "works hard and plays hard") and not for that of a working mother, for example. Not that I am complaining, being a beneficiary of the system, but that's the problem - if you structure the system in a way that a woman wishing to be a mother has to sacrifice her career to do so, then the argument that she can "work as hard as a man for the same pay" becomes illusory.
Most Western European societies recognize that already.
Is there any particular thing these European societies are doing the rest of the world should take heed of?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
This is one of the more ridiculous numbers that get tossed around anyway. I was never even clear on what it represented. I was told that women make less for doing the same jobs...but the number they quoted was wages based on similar education levels and not the same jobs...or whatever. And I was never sure what government action was requested since it is already illegal to pay people different amounts based on gender. Were the Feds supposed to make it really really really illegal or something?
Why do you hate women? Besides the obvious I mean.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
So you'd be fine with a female college of your working less hours but making more per hour to compensate? What if she wasn't a mother but still made more per hour to cover the possibility that she may become a mother in the future?
In nearly every field people with more education, more experience and more hours put in get better positions and better paid. Why should ones gender factor into it? Should people from poorer backgrounds make more to compensate for the fact that they couldn't get a better education to get a better job?
So, would taking some time off for kid things but making the same amount of money for the time worked not qualify as equal? Hmm that sentence is awkward...Say the guy works 40 hours and makes $1000. The girl works 20 hours and spends the rest with the kids and makes $500. That's equal, right?
I wouldn't be surprised if women are less aggressive than men when negotiating their salary.
Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
Why do you hate women? Besides the obvious I mean.
Their horrible fashion sense mostly.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
Why do you hate women? Besides the obvious I mean.
Their horrible fashion sense mostly.
It's gay guys who make them dress that way :D
Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
Why do you hate women? Besides the obvious I mean.
We gave them the vote, and what's the first thing they did with it? Passed prohibition. :P
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2011, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
So you'd be fine with a female college of your working less hourse but making more per hour to compensate? What if she wasn't a mother but still made more per hour to cover the possibility that she may become a mother in the future?
In nearly every feild people with more education, more experience and more hours put in get better positions and better paid. Why should ones gender factor into it? Should people from poorer backgrounds make more to compensate for the fact that they couldn't get a better education to get a better job?
Why? Because as a society we need to support mothers, and supporting working mothers makes sure not just conservative "woman's place is in the kitchen" rightwinger types are able to breed.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
So then what's the $ value on getting to be a mother, so we can know how much more to pay women who don't become mothers to compensate them on what they're missing out on?
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
It's about a work style. The system is made for a "man's lifestyle" (preferably a single/gay man who "works hard and plays hard") and not for that of a working mother, for example. Not that I am complaining, being a beneficiary of the system, but that's the problem - if you structure the system in a way that a woman wishing to be a mother has to sacrifice her career to do so, then the argument that she can "work as hard as a man for the same pay" becomes illusory.
So then where is your rant about straight men with families being underpaid when compared to gay men?
QuoteMost Western European societies recognize that already.
If society wants to make some sort of allowance (paid maternity leave, etc.) for women to take time off & have babies, that's okay with me. Same for other benefits women typically get in western societies (better healthcare, less hazardous jobs, longer life expectancy). But if we're going to do those things, we need to stop obsessing about 'issues' such as women appearing to have fewer career opportunities than men, Title IX, etc.
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2011, 02:29:26 PM
If society wants to make some sort of allowance (paid maternity leave, etc.) for women to take time off & have babies, that's okay with me. Same for other benefits women typically get in western societies (better healthcare, less hazardous jobs, longer life expectancy). But if we're going to do those things, we need to stop obsessing about 'issues' such as women appearing to have fewer career opportunities than men, Title IX, etc.
If society feels the need to do that, the costs should be imposed societally, not on the employer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2011, 02:18:05 PM
We gave them the vote, and what's the first thing they did with it? Passed prohibition. :P
The second thing they did was elect Warren Harding. :bleeding:
I'm curious why a woman who takes more sick days than me and works less hours than me somehow "deserves" the same pay?
I'm all for equal pay for equal effort, but that never seems to be the salient point.
Usually it's "equal pay for equal position" and affirmative action for the plush positions.
I never, ever heard any feminist organization demand to be given more positions as plumbers, lumberjacks or mill workers. It's all board rooms and lawyering.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:18:18 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2011, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
So you'd be fine with a female college of your working less hourse but making more per hour to compensate? What if she wasn't a mother but still made more per hour to cover the possibility that she may become a mother in the future?
In nearly every feild people with more education, more experience and more hours put in get better positions and better paid. Why should ones gender factor into it? Should people from poorer backgrounds make more to compensate for the fact that they couldn't get a better education to get a better job?
Why? Because as a society we need to support mothers, and supporting working mothers makes sure not just conservative "woman's place is in the kitchen" rightwinger types are able to breed.
:lol:
Holy shit, you're all over the place. Have you ever held a consistent position in your entire life, you queer father fucker? :nelson:
Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2011, 02:18:05 PM
We gave them the vote, and what's the first thing they did with it? Passed prohibition. :P
The second thing they did was elect Warren Harding. :bleeding:
Hey don't diss the hometown boy. I don't go shitting all over your Hatfields and McCoys.
I met a McCoy the other week at the state fairgrounds. She was trying to sell some cookbook of Appalachian heritage cooking she wrote. I didn't buy the cookbook, but I enjoyed her free samples of beer cheese. :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:18:18 PM
Why? Because as a society we need to support mothers, and supporting working mothers makes sure not just conservative "woman's place is in the kitchen" rightwinger types are able to breed.
There's maternity leave to ensure that mothers can take time off for the baby (although i think the US version is like insanely short), tax benefits for parents, and more and more state funded day care services. I'm all for directed support of families, and I'd support more. however paying someone a different rate for different work and different effort because of their genitalia? That doesn't seem equal or right to me.
Also, you didn't answer my question :P . Perhaps it's the languish stereotype of you clouding my judgment, but if a female lawyer (or worse, a legal assistant) made as much as you because she had a kid and "was in the same field" as you I think you'd be screaming bloody murder about breeders :lol:
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2011, 03:04:12 PMhowever paying someone a different rate for different work and different effort because of their genitalia? That doesn't seem equal or right to me.
But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.
Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?
Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.
Sure, but men, once they have their kids, suddenly find they're no longer earning money for themselves: everything they do, professionally, is for their new dependents. This is a heavy mental load for the majority of men out there who are not high-flying lawyers and have to live day to day like the rest of us, in uncertain economic times. I see it every day on the faces of my colleagues who can't just jump ship and find a better paid job, or move to a new city, or do this or that; what matters is where the food and clothing money comes from - for their children.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.
Well I am not sure what jobs you are thinking of now. Nursing is one of the most lucrative careers you can have for the education level.
Anyway my question is solely with the claim that women get paid less for doing the exact same job. The fact that having families or that some jobs pay differently than other jobs are certainly issues but they are not that issue.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.
I agree that's real life problem, but I think that professional wages are very little dictated by sex. But my argument in this thread is not aimed to that realm. My argument is that a male nurse and a female nurse, for example, with equal qualifications should make the same. If a male surgeon makes more then a female nurse it should be expected (same as it should it be expected that he's making more then the male nurse). To lump all medical professions together and then claim that men make more then women disregarding actual position and profession is disingenuous. When Marti claims it's alright to lump them because woman are at a disadvantaged anyway and should be making more to compensate is see that as wrong.
Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I met a McCoy the other week at the state fairgrounds. She was trying to sell some cookbook of Appalachian heritage cooking she wrote. I didn't buy the cookbook, but I enjoyed her free samples of beer cheese. :)
Now I can't stop thinking of Hofbrauhaus pretzels with beer cheese. Jerk :angry:
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
There's maternity leave to ensure that mothers can take time off for the baby (although i think the US version is like insanely short), tax benefits for parents, and more and more state funded day care services.
How short is the US version? And how much time do you think it should be?
Quote from: HVC on April 12, 2011, 03:22:56 PMTo lump all medical professions together and then claim that men make more then women disregarding actual position and profession is disingenuous. When Marti claims it's alright to lump them because woman are at a disadvantaged anyway and should be making more to compensate is see that as wrong.
But what you can get, when you lump all the "medical" professions together, might be the illustration of glass ceilings (i.e., how many woman get into surgery?). Which may or may not exist, per se, but when some professions progress through cooptation, I think it is a legitimate question to ask.
In other words, there are a number of issues embedded here:
1) how are predominantly female professions paid compared to predominantly male professions?
2) in the hierarchy of a profession, or a field, how are women represented at the top?
3) in both cases, how is the selection made? Is it socially? (fields that keep attracting more men than women). Is it discriminatory? (fields that actively, though subtly, today, discourage women). Is it through work-related organization? (cooptation from "old boys clubs"; no parent-friendly schedules, etc.)
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2011, 03:46:01 PM
How short is the US version? And how much time do you think it should be?
I think it's 12 weeks.
What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 03:54:44 PM
What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?
Shit, our education system does that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2011, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 03:54:44 PM
What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?
Shit, our education system does that.
More than 80% of managerial positions in Swedish health care are filled by females. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Having a BA means jack and shit. I say that as somebody with a BA. Anyway nobody wants to be a construction worker. The hours suck, the work is not steady, it is hard, and it is outside. More people want to be pre-school teachers than construction workers. You get much better benefits, social presitige, and time off. If you get paid a little less it is more than made up by other benefits.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Do you think this is because the patriarchate is keeping women down, or is it perhaps because while any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%? Or is it perhaps because unions have worked hard at securing rights for their members? Or is it perhaps that it's far easier to measure skill and results in a construction worker than a school teacher?
So many variables.
Let's just claim there's a glass ceiling and demand some handouts.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Lets take that example. A construction worker does not work full time but project to project. As a result a construction worker may well spend significant periods of time out of work. A construction worker may earn a higher hourly wage (not sure about that but I will assume it for the sake of the argument) but in the long run the primary school teacher may well make more because the teacher has steady ininterrupted employment.
That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples. People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.
Not to mention the fact that the probability of a very serious injury that could end your career is a constant danger in construction and not so much teaching pre-school.
Part of that is the education bubble. In the real world, there is no objective value of a degree. Just because a person has one, the work they do is not somehow more valuable.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 04:09:18 PM
Not to mention the fact that the probability of a very serious injury that could end your career is a constant danger in construction and not so much teaching pre-school.
Misogynist.
Tinnitus is a very real problem.
And while I was being flippant, really, it is actually a serious problem. Pre-school and kindergarten is a breeding ground for hearing related problems. As is for instance tendon damage for hairdressers. It's obviously not all fun and play being a woman in the workforce.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
Misogynist.
Tinnitus is a very real problem.
And while I was being flippant, really, it is actually a serious problem. Pre-school and kindergarten is a breeding ground for hearing related problems. As is for instance tendon damage for hairdressers. It's obviously not all fun and play being a woman in the workforce.
Being a hairdresser is hardly a female dominated industry.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
Misogynist.
Tinnitus is a very real problem.
And while I was being flippant, really, it is actually a serious problem. Pre-school and kindergarten is a breeding ground for hearing related problems. As is for instance tendon damage for hairdressers. It's obviously not all fun and play being a woman in the workforce.
Being a hairdresser is hardly a female dominated industry.
Let us agree to disagree. :hmm:
I note with unbridled pleasure, however, that you chose the time honoured Languish tradition of jumping on the one detail that is possibly assailable, ignoring all others. :P
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:07:12 PM
Do you think this is because the patriarchate is keeping women down, or is it perhaps because while any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%? Or is it perhaps because unions have worked hard at securing rights for their members? Or is it perhaps that it's far easier to measure skill and results in a construction worker than a school teacher?
I suspect most men capable of doing either would choose to teach given the same pay as well.
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/05/29/traditional-jobs-for-men-and-women-the-gender-divide/
And it seems I was right and Valmy was wrong - Again. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:07:12 PM
Do you think this is because the patriarchate is keeping women down, or is it perhaps because while any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%? Or is it perhaps because unions have worked hard at securing rights for their members? Or is it perhaps that it's far easier to measure skill and results in a construction worker than a school teacher?
I suspect most men capable of doing either would choose to teach given the same pay as well.
So the Market would need to pay construction workers more in order to secure the labour. Interesting. What a shocking development.. :hmm:
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Leaving aside the issue of physical capacity, how does one determine whether an overrepresentation in a particular line of work is a function of societal pressure or of innate differences in preferences?
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:16:05 PM
Let us agree to disagree. :hmm:
I note with unbridled pleasure, however, that you chose the time honoured Languish tradition of jumping on the one detail that is possibly assailable, ignoring all others. :P
I have recently noticed how many of the big fashion designers, hair dressers, make up artists, and so forth are men. It just never occured to me they dominated to the extent that they do. Since it was a topic on my mind of late I commented on it. Sorry if I offended.
But I guess going by those numbers this difference only exists at the top.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
And it seems I was right and Valmy was wrong - Again. :hmm:
Hardly an accomplishment. I am usually wrong.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:16:05 PM
Let us agree to disagree. :hmm:
I note with unbridled pleasure, however, that you chose the time honoured Languish tradition of jumping on the one detail that is possibly assailable, ignoring all others. :P
I have recently noticed how many of the big fashion designers, hair dressers, make up artists, and so forth are men. It just never occured to me they dominated to the extent that they do. Since it was a topic on my mind of late I commented on it. Sorry if I offended.
Don't feign innocence, you smarmy bastard. You'll need to bring out bigger guns than that to offend me. :D
Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:36:40 PM
Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.
Yep. I hesitate to comment on why that might be.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:36:40 PM
Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.
Yep. I hesitate to comment on why that might be.
I suspect the answer is very simple.
Men want to get laid.
So they build bridges, fly to the moon and write poetry. All in an effort to stand out, gain recognition and: Get laid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age? It seems more suited to the 1950s.
Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.
I think it still has quite some weight.
Lets take that example. A construction worker does not work full time but project to project. As a result a construction worker may well spend significant periods of time out of work. A construction worker may earn a higher hourly wage (not sure about that but I will assume it for the sake of the argument) but in the long run the primary school teacher may well make more because the teacher has steady ininterrupted employment.
That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples. People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.
Heh not to mention the awesome perks that go with some teaching jobs that somewhat distort the picture one gets by merely comparing salaries - like a well-funded pension plan, great vacation time, PD days, job security, senority benefits, etc. Of course, if your construction worker is unionized, he may get some of that too.
It's the same reason why a mere salary comparison doesn't explain the whole difference between private practice and government work in law. We in private practice I think all shudder in horror at the pitiful salaries BB and co. make in gov't service - but that doesn't take into account a whole host of other factors, like pensions, and the relative lack of job security that exists in private practice (mind you, those salaries are still horribly low even so).
Point being it is often very difficult to truly judge which profession has it better. Salary by itself doesn't always show the true picture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 04:26:44 PMLeaving aside the issue of physical capacity, how does one determine whether an overrepresentation in a particular line of work is a function of societal pressure or of innate differences in preferences?
If you are looking for a test, there aren't any, of course. It is part of our endless debate about nature vs nurture. I will simply remark that we are (or used to be) highly selective in things we are content to label "natural".
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:07:12 PMwhile any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%?
This is certainly untrue, and part of a problem, in that we look at skills in construction as "real" skills, whereas we downplay those associated with other jobs as being something "everyone" could do. I could easily claim that any man who picks up a hammer can become a construction worker.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples. People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.
Nobody said it was easy. But I can't help feeling most other arguments for status quo are simply asking to be content with whatever situation we are in, however unfair it might be - or to let "the market" (whatever that is) - deal very gradually with any unfair situation. I don't think the line "life is unfair, deal with it" offers a great moral, or political, or social, beacon.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 05:07:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:07:12 PMwhile any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%?
This is certainly untrue, and part of a problem, in that we look at skills in construction as "real" skills, whereas we downplay those associated with other jobs as being something "everyone" could do. I could easily claim that any man who picks up a hammer can become a construction worker.
:lol:
A lot of men are physically ill equipped for working in construction. It's easy to point out someone who doesn't know their ass from a hammer, and since they have clear production quotas it's easy to determine that one will not function while another will.
Teachers, be they men or women, can also be more or less able than others to perform their function, but it's not as easy to sort them. Hence, you can more easily hang on to a job as a teacher while less than competent than you can as a construction worker.
Smaller pool from which to draw candidates typically equals better pay.
There is nothing less "real" in teaching skill and I didn't make any such claim. Nice try, though.
How long would a "no house left behind" policy function, you figure? :hmm:
A kid who leaves school hardly being able to read can still get rubber stamped, and a failure by the teacher can be explained by getting philosophical about socio-economics and structural racism. When a house crumbles because someone gives it a hearty kick, the builders are screwed.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 04:36:40 PM
Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.
Yep. I hesitate to comment on why that might be.
I suspect the answer is very simple.
Men want to get laid.
So they build bridges, fly to the moon and write poetry. All in an effort to stand out, gain recognition and: Get laid.
So, to solve the equality problem, women should put out more readily.
I am: sold.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 05:10:59 PM
Nobody said it was easy. But I can't help feeling most other arguments for status quo are simply asking to be content with whatever situation we are in, however unfair it might be - or to let "the market" (whatever that is) - deal very gradually with any unfair situation. I don't think the line "life is unfair, deal with it" offers a great moral, or political, or social, beacon.
Ok what I thought was unfair and what I have been trying to piece together is the notion that women get paid less for doing the same job. That is unfair and unjust and should be pursued and corrected to the best of our abilities.
Now the idea that it is unfair on some level that different jobs get paid different amounts is...well how exactly is that unfair? And what do you propose is the enlightened solution? Wage controls based on 'fairness' (whatever that is)? How do we determine a 'fair' wage for a job? Please explain why minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws are not sufficient. I have a hard time figuring our what you are getting at...mandatory cuts for all construction wages because...it just feels wrong they make so much?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 10:34:36 PMNow the idea that it is unfair on some level that different jobs get paid different amounts is...well how exactly is that unfair? And what do you propose is the enlightened solution? Wage controls based on 'fairness' (whatever that is)? How do we determine a 'fair' wage for a job? Please explain why minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws are not sufficient. I have a hard time figuring our what you are getting at short of wage controls. Mandatory cuts for all construction wages because...it just feels wrong they make so much?
if most prejudice and biased attitude is contained within the subconsciousness, then surely in a patriarchal society women would be at an inherent disadvantage regardless of how far we have progressed. thus, laws are in place to protect them. what is so complicated about that? less than a hundred years ago there were still states who denied suffrage to women. do you really think that we as a people could cast off firmly entrenched attitudes and truly treat women with equality (edit) within such a short time? a little naive, but for all i know this might be your shtick ala
le revolution! :P
Quote from: LaCroix on April 12, 2011, 10:44:49 PM
do you really think that we as a people could cast off firmly entrenched attitudes and truly treat women with equality (edit) within such a short time? a little naive, but for all i know this might be your shtick ala le revolution! :P
I do not know but I think we should try.
I fail to see where I said we should not have laws in place to protect women. I am in favor of those laws. What I said was I do not see how it is so unjust that wages for different jobs are different. Very few jobs have the exact same wage and by what standard are the wages supposed to be determined?
If construction workers have it so great why not work to get more women into construction? Of course here in Texas construction is largely considered a shit job but I digress.
I am really totally failing at communication is you think I am against laws to counter discrimination based on gender or that I think there are no problems in this society based on gender. What I get annoyed at is that people seem to be eager to misrepresent what the problems are by manipulating data for their own agenda. It gets hard to know what is really going on. So I come on these threads to discuss what the problems might be. Marty thinks we should help mothers more so their careers do not suffer that I think most people would be in favor of. I am not so sure we should be stepping in to dictate wages because they may or may not have been set by gender prejudice in the past. Mostly because wage and price controls have historically always been disastrously horrible policies beyond the sorta squicky authoritarian bent of it.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 10:52:01 PMI do not know but I think we should try.
Very few jobs have the exact same wage and by what standard are the wages supposed to be determined?
If construction workers have it so great why not work to get more women into construction?
What I get annoyed at is that people seem to be eager to misrepresent what the problems are by manipulating data for their own agenda. It gets hard to know what is really going on. So I come on these threads to discuss what the problems might be. Marty thinks we should help mothers more so their careers do not suffer that I think most people would be in favor of. I am not so sure we should be stepping in to dictate wages because they may or may not have been set by gender prejudice in the past. Mostly because wage and price controls have historically always been disastrously horrible policies beyond the sorta squicky authoritarian bent of it.
i might be too much of a realist to believe in humanity's ability to
try to be reasonable without laws to make it so ;)
as they were in the age of man. a lawyer can be paid a lawyer's wage, but equally among the sexes
there will never be a majority of women in construction. the inherent differences between male and female are too great to assume that some day we all be the same. regardless of what swedish couples believed years ago, neuroscience has grown up since then. there are (to me) obvious factors why women won't flock to (say) construction, and simply asking them to enlist in manual labor--or offering incentives for it--won't fix that
everyone has an agenda, and they all play with statistics. what's really going on? look around you. who are beaten? not men. who are left with children to raise and little education, or why is it that in order to be successful in business a woman must adopt the personality of a man? if you have an understanding of race relations, that even today the level of bias against minorities is sickening, then i would imagine you could see the problems the fairer sex live with every day of their life. we are undoubtedly on top, and no matter what some article says, the advantage will remain in our favor for a very long time
i don't think a continued trend in gender or racial "wage and price controls" will result in a ruined economy, as haven't we been practicing it for the past few decades?
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
I've always earned more than the man in my life, more than double in some cases.
This may say more for my lack of pulling power than the march of feminism :P
The feminists won't be happy till they get 50% more.
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
Why. The hell. Not.
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I
know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I
know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you
know it will not.
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 05:56:51 AM
Why. The hell. Not.
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you know it will not.
Unless the information is volunteered, here at least it's illegal to ask.
I'd hate you to get in trouble, I know you're the last person to discriminate against anyone.
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 06:09:28 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 05:56:51 AM
Why. The hell. Not.
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you know it will not.
Unless the information is volunteered, here at least it's illegal to ask.
I'd hate you to get in trouble, I know you're the last person to discriminate against anyone.
:lol:
I don't actually know the particulars here, but typically it will come out as a natural part of the discussion anyway.
The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not only wasting my own time and money, I am wasting the time of the employee since payment is based on production and someone who won't produce won't get paid, and they'll waste 6-12 months finding this out.
At my work if two people are doing the EXACT same work they are unlikely to make the exact same amount of money. Why? Because people are differently good at business negotiations. The idea that same work = same pay is somehow important in itself is a little weird.
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
Bingo.
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 05:56:51 AM
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you know it will not.
Good luck when someone records the conversation on their iPhone and sues the living shit out of your company.
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 06:09:28 AM
Unless the information is volunteered, here at least it's illegal to ask.
I'd hate you to get in trouble, I know you're the last person to discriminate against anyone.
Illegal here, too. However, it's often possible to trick the candidate into voluntarily telling you this info. If they volunteer it, then no law has been broken and of course you can "unofficially" factor it into your hiring decision.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 09:49:57 AM
Illegal here, too. However, it's often possible to trick the candidate into voluntarily telling you this info. If they volunteer it, then no law has been broken and of course you can "unofficially" factor it into your hiring decision.
This is why it is a good idea to talk to the Cals of the world before an interview. 'It is just so hard being a single person totally devoted to my career. Sometimes I spend so much time at the office I forget where my apartment is!'
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2011, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
Bingo.
What an ass. Hopefully fossils like him will be retiring soon and we will see less of that in the future.
Here's a trick. Put a picture of kids on your desk in the office where you conduct the interview. If you have kids, put a picture of them on the desk. If not, find a picture on google of some cute little guy posing with his little league baseball bat or standing atop a soccer ball in a pee wee uniform.
Since most people think it's a good idea to establish some sort of personal connection with an interviewer, alot of them will be like "Wow your son looks just like my little Tyler! Does he have a peanut allergy and freebase Ritalin like Tyler, too?"
At that point I'd continue the interview out of courtesy but they will have already eliminated themselves as a candidate. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 09:58:42 AM
Here's a trick. Put a picture of kids on your desk in the office where you conduct the interview. If you have kids, put a picture of them on the desk. If not, find a picture on google of some cute little guy posing with his little league baseball bat or standing atop a soccer ball in a pee wee uniform.
Since most people think it's a good idea to establish some sort of personal connection with an interviewer, alot of them will be like "Wow your son looks just like my little Tyler! Does he have a peanut allergy and freebase Ritalin like Tyler, too?"
At that point I'd continue the interview out of courtesy but they will have already eliminated themselves as a candidate. :)
Wow you HR people really are evil.
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 05:56:51 AM
Why. The hell. Not.
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you know it will not.
You
know jackshit, at least about men with young children. If you did you'd
know that nothing makes a man want to work late hours than the prospect of going back to a screaming baby and exhausted mother.
So in America, you can't have children anymore?
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:00:00 AM
Wow you HR people really are evil.
:frusty:
I. am. not. in. HR.
I recruited for IT positions for two years, but came at it from am IT perspective, not an HR one. The entire rest of my career has been in IT (including now).
Quote from: Gups on April 13, 2011, 10:00:59 AM
You know jackshit, at least about men with young children. If you did you'd know that nothing makes a man want to work late hours than the prospect of going back to a screaming baby and exhausted mother.
Or worse yet, an exhausted baby and screaming mother :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 09:58:42 AM
Here's a trick. Put a picture of kids on your desk in the office where you conduct the interview. If you have kids, put a picture of them on the desk. If not, find a picture on google of some cute little guy posing with his little league baseball bat or standing atop a soccer ball in a pee wee uniform.
Since most people think it's a good idea to establish some sort of personal connection with an interviewer, alot of them will be like "Wow your son looks just like my little Tyler! Does he have a peanut allergy and freebase Ritalin like Tyler, too?"
At that point I'd continue the interview out of courtesy but they will have already eliminated themselves as a candidate. :)
Wow you HR people really are evil.
I always knew that but I had no idea that any of them were also competent.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 10:02:06 AM
I. am. not. in. HR.
I recruited for IT positions for two years, but came at it from am IT perspective, not an HR one. The entire rest of my career has been in IT (including now).
Damn dude I was kidding around with you.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 10:02:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:00:00 AM
Wow you HR people really are evil.
:frusty:
I. am. not. in. HR.
I recruited for IT positions for two years, but came at it from am IT perspective, not an HR one. The entire rest of my career has been in IT (including now).
I retract my previous comment.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:03:19 AM
Damn dude I was kidding around with you.
Oh, ok. For some reason alot of people around here seem to think I'm an HR drone. :unsure:
My last job interview the employer said "we'll really, the only question I have is if I hire you how do I know you just won't move on to another job in two years"? (my resume showed 4 legal jobs in the last 10 years).
After studiously not mentioning my family, at this point I mentioned by wife, Baby Timothy, and wanting to be close to our extended family. There was an almost audible sigh, and I of course was given the job.
And of course the first thing I did in my new office was put up my pictrues of my wife and Baby Timothy. :cool:
Take it easy on Cal, guys. Nobody want to admit they're in HR.
Quote from: Gups on April 13, 2011, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 05:56:51 AM
Why. The hell. Not.
If I'm hiring a salesman, I am going to pass on anyone with young children, or who is pregnant or has a pregnant wife since I know that the job demands 100% attention for the first 3-12 months depending on individual capability. I know that it will be pointless for me to make the hire and I know that it will be a waste of their time since they will not be able to produce enough to keep the job. Why fuck about and pretend it will work when you know it will not.
You know jackshit, at least about men with young children. If you did you'd know that nothing makes a man want to work late hours than the prospect of going back to a screaming baby and exhausted mother.
:lol:
Having a hard time with the kid? :hmm:
Granted, my experience on the subject is limited to following roughly 20 hires and fires over a 5 year period (which may not sound like a lot, but considering it was in a region with a need for 6-8 sales reps, where we never managed to pass 5 it's plenty enough) but without fail the guys with young kids could simply not put in the number of hours (especially evening and weekend) necessary in order to succeed. The flexibility was simply not there. Hence, if I were to entertain hiring someone today with young children at home, he would need to make a VERY convincing case.
The same goes for women in general and taking measurements. Typically our female hires were problems from day one until they quit because 4 times out of 5, they simply couldn't take reliable measurements and consider three dimensions. A bigger company can afford not to discriminate, but a smaller one simply cannot, no matter what kind of wonderful and valuable rocket scientists I can hire from the wealth of well educated afghani refugees.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:03:19 AM
Damn dude I was kidding around with you.
Oh, ok. For some reason alot of people around here seem to think I'm an HR drone. :unsure:
Of course not, you're an eeeeevül HR mastermind. :P
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:03:19 AM
Damn dude I was kidding around with you.
Oh, ok. For some reason alot of people around here seem to think I'm an HR drone. :unsure:
Nah, I think most people think you are a kind of "lazy mastermind" guy who is extremely overqualified for his shitty job and find fulfilment elsewhere.
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
The same goes for women in general and taking measurements. Typically our female hires were problems from day one until they quit because 4 times out of 5, they simply couldn't take reliable measurements and consider three dimensions.
:blink:
I wish I knew what retail chain Slargos worked for and whether they had stores in Poland - I wouldn't want to buy from a store that has sufficiently shitty corporate culture that people like Slargos get through the cracks rather than being kicked out. :P
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
[ :lol:
Having a hard time with the kid? :hmm:
Not at all, he's 9 now so hardly young. He basically likes football, computer games and the Simpsons so we get on great.
But when he was a baby the only taste we shared was tits and for some reason he was deemed to have priority.
Quote from: Gups on April 13, 2011, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
[ :lol:
Having a hard time with the kid? :hmm:
Not at all, he's 9 now so hardly young. He basically likes football, computer games and the Simpsons so we get on great.
But when he was a baby the only taste we shared was tits and for some reason he was deemed to have priority.
Next, he'll be trying out your shoes, and before you know it you're prematurely "dead from natural causes" as he cashes in on your insurance. Act now before it's too late, and don't make me say I told you so. :hmm:
I caught my niece walking around in my boots this winter. A very chilling moment.
Quote from: Gups on April 13, 2011, 10:33:07 AM
But when he was a baby the only taste we shared was tits and for some reason he was deemed to have priority.
:lol:
DIVORCE THE BITCH! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
The same goes for women in general and taking measurements. Typically our female hires were problems from day one until they quit because 4 times out of 5, they simply couldn't take reliable measurements and consider three dimensions.
:blink:
Oh, come off it.
"Waah you can't talk that way, it's offensive!"
Well, fuck you. They took wrong measurements, didn't consider objects that would hinder, you know, opening drawers and doors and cost a fucking fortune in replacement products and extra trips for the carpenters. One out of five I worked with could actually do the job, and another sold so well that the added cost was worth it, but the other three were completely and utterly useless.
Now, to be fair, this could be said about a lot of the men hired as well, but at least typically they were able read the scale of a folding ruler.
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:48:44 AM
Oh, come off it.
"Waah you can't talk that way, it's offensive!"
Well, fuck you. They took wrong measurements, didn't consider objects that would hinder, you know, opening drawers and doors and cost a fucking fortune in replacement products and extra trips for the carpenters. One out of five I worked with could actually do the job, and another sold so well that the added cost was worth it, but the other three were completely and utterly useless.
Now, to be fair, this could be said about a lot of the men hired as well, but at least typically they were able read the scale of a folding ruler.
I just find it hard to believe that that is so very difficult it is the reason for 4 of 5 people had to quit.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 10:50:51 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 10:48:44 AM
Oh, come off it.
"Waah you can't talk that way, it's offensive!"
Well, fuck you. They took wrong measurements, didn't consider objects that would hinder, you know, opening drawers and doors and cost a fucking fortune in replacement products and extra trips for the carpenters. One out of five I worked with could actually do the job, and another sold so well that the added cost was worth it, but the other three were completely and utterly useless.
Now, to be fair, this could be said about a lot of the men hired as well, but at least typically they were able read the scale of a folding ruler.
I just find it hard to believe that that is so very difficult it is the reason for 4 of 5 people had to quit.
All 5 of them quit or got fired within 2 years and in all 5 cases it was some variation on not being able to actually do the job. The two who could actually function eventually quit over the stress, and the three who were completely useless were fired within 6 months. Maybe we just got unlucky with them, but I don't think it's too controversial to note that women typically have a poorer spatial sense than men and will generally have a harder time with this kind of job not only because of the physical and mental stress but also because of the difficulty of performing the technical functions.
Sales is well paid for a reason.
It takes a real man - wearing a pink shirt - to sell kitchen appliances. ;)
:lol:
I buy all of my appliances from Charlie Wilson of Charlie Wilson's Dixie Appliance. :alberta:
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
It takes a real man - wearing a pink shirt - to sell kitchen appliances. ;)
You're never going to let that go, huh? :P
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 11:57:50 AM
:lol:
I buy all of my appliances from Charlie Wilson of Charlie Wilson's Dixie Appliance. :alberta:
I wondered what he did after he retired from Congress.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
It takes a real man - wearing a pink shirt - to sell kitchen appliances. ;)
Sometimes scantily clad women who can't measure can't make the sale. Namely to gay men. That's where Slargos and his pink shirt comes in ;) :D
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
It takes a real man - wearing a pink shirt - to sell kitchen appliances. ;)
You're never going to let that go, huh? :P
This is Languish. No one ever lets anything go. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 01:29:10 PM
This is Languish. No one ever lets anything go. :D
I've washed my hands of you and your son.
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 01:29:10 PM
This is Languish. No one ever lets anything go. :D
I've washed my hands of you and your son.
ah, looks like you just dirtied them again :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 01:29:10 PM
This is Languish. No one ever lets anything go. :D
I've washed my hands of you and your son.
Meh?
I would up the ante and jump on that grenade by adding something really crassly anti-semitic about your kid, but even I have barriers I won't cross. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 02:09:57 PM
My point: proven!
I think you fail to understand the concept.
"Letting something go" here means letting the
other person off the hook for something they said or did that they later regret, instead of having it brought up again and again so as to torment them.
It doesn't mean a cessasion of one's own horrible bitchery. :D
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2011, 01:01:03 PM
I wondered what he did after he retired from Congress.
*checks* I don't think it's the same guy, sorry. :(
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 02:08:28 PM
I would up the ante and jump on that grenade by adding something really crassly anti-semitic about your kid, but even I have barriers I won't cross. :hmm:
Malthus doesn't mind the Jew jokes. Only insecure races get mad when you make jokes poking fun at them. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 02:09:57 PM
My point: proven!
I think you fail to understand the concept.
"Letting something go" here means letting the other person off the hook for something they said or did that they later regret, instead of having it brought up again and again so as to torment them.
It doesn't mean a cessasion of one's own horrible bitchery. :D
Just because you don't regret your behavior doesn't mean that I didn't let you off the hook. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 02:08:28 PM
I would up the ante and jump on that grenade by adding something really crassly anti-semitic about your kid, but even I have barriers I won't cross. :hmm:
Malthus doesn't mind the Jew jokes. Only insecure races get mad when you make jokes poking fun at them. :)
:huh:
Ah, yes. Joke. That's what I was going to do. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 02:08:28 PM
I would up the ante and jump on that grenade by adding something really crassly anti-semitic about your kid, but even I have barriers I won't cross. :hmm:
Malthus doesn't mind the Jew jokes. Only insecure races get mad when you make jokes poking fun at them. :)
I just pretend not to mind. If Slagos is found in an unlikely accident involving a kitchen cabinet and a folding ruler, you will know the Elders of Zion have taken a terrible vengence for his disrespect. :menace:
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 02:17:03 PM
Just because you don't regret your behavior doesn't mean that I didn't let you off the hook. ^_^
Ah yes, that terrible, terrible behaviour. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 02:17:03 PM
Just because you don't regret your behavior doesn't mean that I didn't let you off the hook. ^_^
Ah yes, that terrible, terrible behaviour. :hmm:
Obnoxious. :P
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 13, 2011, 02:08:28 PM
I would up the ante and jump on that grenade by adding something really crassly anti-semitic about your kid, but even I have barriers I won't cross. :hmm:
Malthus doesn't mind the Jew jokes. Only insecure races get mad when you make jokes poking fun at them. :)
I just pretend not to mind. If Slagos is found in an unlikely accident involving a kitchen cabinet and a folding ruler, you will know the Elders of Zion have taken a terrible vengence for his disrespect. :menace:
:(
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
Personally, I think therein lies the answer.
I believe that men should be given the same paternity leave that a woman gets in maternity. He, like she, should have ample time to bond with the baby, spend time together as a family unit, and get to know how things will work. I think this will actually solve a number of societal problems, like fathers feeling like less of a parent until the child can walk and talk, divorces from one spouse feeling like the other just doesn't understand, and the "equal" pay thing will continue as time goes on.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:35:40 PM
Quote from: Brazen on April 13, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.
Personally, I think therein lies the answer.
I believe that men should be given the same paternity leave that a woman gets in maternity. He, like she, should have ample time to bond with the baby, spend time together as a family unit, and get to know how things will work. I think this will actually solve a number of societal problems, like fathers feeling like less of a parent until the child can walk and talk, divorces from one spouse feeling like the other just doesn't understand, and the "equal" pay thing will continue as time goes on.
I agree. This will eliminate not just women, but also breeder males from the career competiion. :shifty:
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2011, 04:37:48 PM
I agree. This will eliminate not just women, but also breeder males from the career competiion. :shifty:
*shrugs*
Those who work more should be paid more. Those who work less should be paid less.
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience. Ultimately, I think it will all work out as a huge positive for society as a whole, as I said.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:20:25 PM
I just pretend not to mind. If Slagos is found in an unlikely accident involving a kitchen cabinet and a folding ruler, you will know the Elders of Zion have taken a terrible vengence for his disrespect. :menace:
Either that or his company caved in one time too many to Scandinavian political correctness, and hired a woman whose lack of three dimensional design and construction planning had shockingly fatal consequences.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:20:25 PM
I just pretend not to mind. If Slagos is found in an unlikely accident involving a kitchen cabinet and a folding ruler, you will know the Elders of Zion have taken a terrible vengence for his disrespect. :menace:
Either that or his company caved in one time too many to Scandinavian political correctness, and hired a woman whose lack of three dimensional design and construction planning had shockingly fatal consequences.
Oh, I can assure you that as long as I'm alive, my company will entertain only such political correctness as keeps it from being forcibly disbanded. IE no overt nazi tributes on company premises. :P
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2011, 04:37:48 PM
I agree. This will eliminate not just women, but also breeder males from the career competiion. :shifty:
*shrugs*
Those who work more should be paid more. Those who work less should be paid less.
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience. Ultimately, I think it will all work out as a huge positive for society as a whole, as I said.
What about those who can work efficiently and thus work less? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 02:20:25 PM
I just pretend not to mind. If Slagos is found in an unlikely accident involving a kitchen cabinet and a folding ruler, you will know the Elders of Zion have taken a terrible vengence for his disrespect. :menace:
Either that or his company caved in one time too many to Scandinavian political correctness, and hired a woman whose lack of three dimensional design and construction planning had shockingly fatal consequences.
I would have said "shocking
and hilariously fatal consequences". :D
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience.
Heh, like the fact that people with kids are more likely to be chained to the paycheque. :D
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 04:50:06 PM
What about those who can work efficiently and thus work less? :huh:
Not hours; workload. In other words, so long as you're willing to get more accomplished, you should be paid more. If parents can do that from home while on paternity/maternity leave, okay. If single folks can do more, they should be paid more.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:53:36 PM
Not hours; workload. In other words, so long as you're willing to get more accomplished, you should be paid more.
Mind if I put you through to my boss, so you can explain it to him? :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 04:56:04 PM
Mind if I put you through to my boss, so you can explain it to him? :)
One day, I hope to own my own company. When that happens, I'll be sure to give you a ring. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience.
Heh, like the fact that people with kids are more likely to be chained to the paycheque. :D
Who are you laughing at? I'm not the only sole breadwinner on this forum... :yeahright:
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:53:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2011, 04:50:06 PM
What about those who can work efficiently and thus work less? :huh:
Not hours; workload. In other words, so long as you're willing to get more accomplished, you should be paid more. If parents can do that from home while on paternity/maternity leave, okay. If single folks can do more, they should be paid more.
Not every profession can handle or register that kind of efficiency increase though.
Sure, a teacher with a larger class will have more work, but won't be able to do the job as well so output is reduced by increasing the amount of work put in.
A carpenter can work harder or longer hours, and his output will increase, perhaps not linearly and quality may suffer but quantity will measurably increase.
The problem is not those willing to work more being paid more - its the exact reverse. The problem is that, at least in the professions, there is no option to work less and be paid less. It is either compete for the big bucks and the big hours, or get out.
This has the natural result from excluding the family-minded from the professions -- unless they are from a traditional-style family, where one parent (usually dad) works, and the other does all the kiddie care.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2011, 04:58:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience.
Heh, like the fact that people with kids are more likely to be chained to the paycheque. :D
Who are you laughing at? I'm not the only sole breadwinner on this forum... :yeahright:
Um ... myself?
It's a rueful laugh. ;)
Having a sugar mama isn't always the best either, you know.
...Oh wait, yeah it is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:29:23 PM
Having a sugar mama isn't always the best either, you know.
...Oh wait, yeah it is.
It's a mixed bag.
Here's an added bonus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience. Ultimately, I think it will all work out as a huge positive for society as a whole, as I said.
This is not the experience of the HK civil service. We overwhelmingly prefer fresh university graduates with no experience (and therefore most likely are singles). We tried to recruit people with say 7 or 10 years of experience. The inevitable result is that most of them leave after 1-2 years. The fresh grads tend to stay until they retire, which is what the civil service needs.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 04:53:09 PM
Heh, like the fact that people with kids are more likely to be chained to the paycheque. :D
This is one way to look at it. Another way is that singles have no income to fall back on, unlike households with two incomes.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience. Ultimately, I think it will all work out as a huge positive for society as a whole, as I said.
This is not the experience of the HK civil service. We overwhelmingly prefer fresh university graduates with no experience (and therefore most likely are singles). We tried to recruit people with say 7 or 10 years of experience. The inevitable result is that most of them leave after 1-2 years. The fresh grads tend to stay until they retire, which is what the civil service needs.
Translation: People who know what the real world is like refuse to stay in your shitty job. :P
Women own ~1% of global capital.
SOURCE: ANERA pamphlet I got in the mail today.
Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2011, 04:58:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience.
Heh, like the fact that people with kids are more likely to be chained to the paycheque. :D
Who are you laughing at? I'm not the only sole breadwinner on this forum... :yeahright:
I'm the sole breadwinner too, only we call it "being a sugar daddy".
Marriage = legalized prostitution.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2011, 05:06:01 PM
The problem is not those willing to work more being paid more - its the exact reverse. The problem is that, at least in the professions, there is no option to work less and be paid less. It is either compete for the big bucks and the big hours, or get out.
Yeah, that's the problem. There is really no real option for reduced work for less pay (in my lawfirm, the head of my department is a mother, so three of my female colleagues (comparable level to me) work at 4/5 of week for 4/5 of pay, but in other departments, headed by guys, this is not really acceptable - and these female colleagues really probably put in more work than just 4 days a week, as this is always "subject to requirements of the service").
Edit: At least in Anglosaxon countries and countries like Poland, which adopted a kind of Anglosaxon model of capitalism. For example in our offices in Amsterdam and Brussels, it is pretty normal for lawyers to leave office at 5 p.m., or work part-time/from home, even counsels and partners. And my work colleague ex-husband, who is a partner at a Swedish firm, also leaves home at 5-6 p.m., because the Swedish management looks down at people staying long hours (ineffective, obsessive, likely to burn out etc.).
So it's really a matter of culture and whether it is possible/useful to change it.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2011, 04:41:32 PM
However, smart companies will also factor in quality of life issues, and as BB said, that will also include stability as those with families are less likely to move away after they've earned some experience. Ultimately, I think it will all work out as a huge positive for society as a whole, as I said.
This is not the experience of the HK civil service. We overwhelmingly prefer fresh university graduates with no experience (and therefore most likely are singles). We tried to recruit people with say 7 or 10 years of experience. The inevitable result is that most of them leave after 1-2 years. The fresh grads tend to stay until they retire, which is what the civil service needs.
Civil service/bureaucracy everywhere is not exactly the normal kind of employer, so their method of choosing new employees is not really a market standard. It's a job for people with a pathologically high risk aversion.
This is a tangent, but I've joined another forum (I know, I'm a traitor) to do with health and fitness. The membership is mainly female and mainly American. I'm completely shocked at how Yank women define themselves by their partners and families. No joke, about half the forum names are along the lines of:
clintswifemomof4
amysmommy
stayhomemom78
brunosbabe
What's up with that?!
Unsurprisingly, there's a fair amount of breakdowns when they find themselves abandoned.
Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 05:12:27 AM
What's up with that?!
No idea. I certainly do not get that sense in daily life (well besides parents doting on their kids but that goes for men and women) or on the forums I frequent from American women.
But then the forums I am on are sports and nerd ones so not the type to attract the health and beauty crowd.
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2011, 01:33:27 AM
I'm the sole breadwinner too, only we call it "being a sugar daddy".
Marriage = legalized prostitution.
I am a dirty whore :weep:
Actually not really. A whore could at least get more than one client. Whores probably have alot more sex than married people also :P
Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 05:12:27 AM
This is a tangent, but I've joined another forum (I know, I'm a traitor) to do with health and fitness. The membership is mainly female and mainly American. I'm completely shocked at how Yank women define themselves by their partners and families. No joke, about half the forum names are along the lines of:
clintswifemomof4
amysmommy
stayhomemom78
brunosbabe
What's up with that?!
Unsurprisingly, there's a fair amount of breakdowns when they find themselves abandoned.
You joined a soccer mommy forum and wonder why the forumites identify as mommies? ;)
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2011, 01:33:27 AM
I'm the sole breadwinner too, only we call it "being a sugar daddy".
Marriage = legalized prostitution.
If only. :lol:
Be the way, if you ever want to see the "Facebook angle" in full effect, check out the pictures on a weight-loss forum (yes I confess, that's what it is). You'll go from "She's got such a pretty face, why does she need to lose weight?" to "Holy fuck, she weighs 280lbs!" in no time at all!
Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 09:33:25 AM
Be the way, if you ever want to see the "Facebook angle" in full effect, check out the pictures on a weight-loss forum (yes I confess, that's what it is). You'll go from "She's got such a pretty face, why does she need to lose weight?" to "Holy fuck, she weighs 280lbs!" in no time at all!
To be fair lots of fat women are pretty facially. Just like lots of hot skinny women have horsey face.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 11:12:41 AM
To be fair lots of fat women are pretty facially. Just like lots of hot skinny women have horsey face.
and somewhere inbetween those extreems are those unfortunate big girls with pretty faces who lose weight and get horsey faces. they just can't win.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 12, 2011, 05:10:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples. People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.
Nobody said it was easy. But I can't help feeling most other arguments for status quo are simply asking to be content with whatever situation we are in, however unfair it might be - or to let "the market" (whatever that is) - deal very gradually with any unfair situation. I don't think the line "life is unfair, deal with it" offers a great moral, or political, or social, beacon.
But you are assuming there is still generally an unfair situation. Where is the data to support that? And therein lies the rub. People asserting unfairness continues to exist are forced to compare jobs that are differnent and then draw comparisons to suit their agenda because there are no situations where men and women do the same job but are paid differently. Rather there is abundent evidence that females have a much easier time obtaining certan jobs (mainly well paying, secure union jobs) because of expressly preferential treatment both in the public and private sectors.
Further one must also deal with the growing body of evidence the the efforts to encourage female participation in education has had a signfiicant detrimental effect on males because, despite what the all people are equal agenda asserts, boys and girls do learn differently. The outcome is plummeting participation and performance rates for males in high school and post secondary education.
If one wished to address unfairness one might come to the conclusion that the pendulum has swung too far and that perhaps we need to think about creating systems that are fair to both males and females.
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2011, 01:33:27 AM
I'm the sole breadwinner too, only we call it "being a sugar daddy".
Marriage = legalized prostitution.
If only. :lol:
:lol:
Marti really should stop trying to offer his opinion in areas outside his knowledge. That might mean we no longer hear from him on most matters, including legal threads, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.
To be fair, Marti never stipulated the that the quality or frequency of the services provided by the wife/whore was satisfactory ;) :D
Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 05:12:27 AM
This is a tangent, but I've joined another forum (I know, I'm a traitor) to do with health and fitness. The membership is mainly female and mainly American. I'm completely shocked at how Yank women define themselves by their partners and families. No joke, about half the forum names are along the lines of:
clintswifemomof4
amysmommy
stayhomemom78
brunosbabe
What's up with that?!
Unsurprisingly, there's a fair amount of breakdowns when they find themselves abandoned.
Welcome to my hell. <_<
When I dared to self-identify without using "momtotwinsplustwomoreandahusbandtoboot", there was much shock.. and banishment. I avoid the Mommy-pages like the plague because of that, too. Women are an extension of their children and husband and have little value beyond that in our culture. Oh joy!
:x
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:15:03 PM
When I dared to self-identify without using "momtotwinsplustwomoreandahusbandtoboot", there was much shock.. and banishment. I avoid the Mommy-pages like the plague because of that, too. Women are an extension of their children and husband and have little value beyond that in our culture. Oh joy!
Wait are you suggesting if I go on a mom page and select a handle 'Sarah' or 'Constructionworkerlady' or whatever not mentioning my hubby or kids I will be banned? :yeahright:
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:41:44 PM
Wait are you suggesting if I go on a mom page and select a handle 'Sarah' or 'Constructionworkerlady' or whatever not mentioning my hubby or kids I will be banned? :yeahright:
Not banned... banished. As in rarely interacted with, talked down to, etc. It may also have been because not every post had a reference to my DD, DS, or DH, too. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
Not banned... banished. As in rarely interacted with, talked down to, etc. It may also have been because not every post had a reference to my DD, DS, or DH, too. :rolleyes:
Weird. Ah well there is a reason I do not seek out places to talk about parenting. People not only have strong opinions about how you should do it they think you are worse than a child abusing Hitler if you do some other way. Meh,
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:56:21 PM
Weird. Ah well there is a reason I do not seek out places to talk about parenting. People not only have strong opinions about how you should do it they think you are worse than a child abusing Hitler if you do some other way. Meh,
That may have been part of it, too. I wasn't shy in saying, "You know, there's more than one way to do things." or "A bruise won't kill a kid. Let them play!" :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:56:21 PM
Weird. Ah well there is a reason I do not seek out places to talk about parenting. People not only have strong opinions about how you should do it they think you are worse than a child abusing Hitler if you do some other way. Meh,
Absolutely. :lol:
What is odd is that this goes double for people who don't have kids!
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:15:03 PM
When I dared to self-identify without using "momtotwinsplustwomoreandahusbandtoboot", there was much shock.. and banishment. I avoid the Mommy-pages like the plague because of that, too. Women are an extension of their children and husband and have little value beyond that in our culture. Oh joy!
Wait are you suggesting if I go on a mom page and select a handle 'Sarah' or 'Constructionworkerlady' or whatever not mentioning my hubby or kids I will be banned? :yeahright:
I recommend trying: 'manstealer21' or 'theotherwoman'
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:57:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:56:21 PM
Weird. Ah well there is a reason I do not seek out places to talk about parenting. People not only have strong opinions about how you should do it they think you are worse than a child abusing Hitler if you do some other way. Meh,
That may have been part of it, too. I wasn't shy in saying, "You know, there's more than one way to do things." or "A bruise won't kill a kid. Let them play!" :blush:
Face it, you are a Languishista. That means, when interacting with others, you probably don't play nice. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Face it, you are a Languishista. That means, when interacting with others, you probably don't play nice. :lol:
Languish has totally ruined me for other forums. I cannot help but sarcastically rip apart people now. It is pretty embarrasing really :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:57:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 12:56:21 PM
Weird. Ah well there is a reason I do not seek out places to talk about parenting. People not only have strong opinions about how you should do it they think you are worse than a child abusing Hitler if you do some other way. Meh,
That may have been part of it, too. I wasn't shy in saying, "You know, there's more than one way to do things." or "A bruise won't kill a kid. Let them play!" :blush:
Face it, you are a Languishista. That means, when interacting with others, you probably don't play nice. :lol:
This place has made us, such a bunch of asshole. I fear for my kid :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 01:40:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Face it, you are a Languishista. That means, when interacting with others, you probably don't play nice. :lol:
Languish has totally ruined me for other forums. I cannot help but sarcastically rip apart people now. It is pretty embarrasing really :blush:
I can just see you sarcastically tearing apart that first time mother in the Parenting help forum :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 14, 2011, 01:41:17 PM
This place has made us, such a bunch of asshole. I fear for my kid :(
I think we're just a bunch of assholes that found eachother :D. Many have come and fallen by the wayside. only the true assholes remain. The sad truth is not that languish made us what we are today, but that we made languish what it is :ph34r:
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2011, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 14, 2011, 01:41:17 PM
This place has made us, such a bunch of asshole. I fear for my kid :(
I think we're just a bunch of assholes that found eachother :D. Many have come and fallen by the wayside. only the true assholes remain. The sad truth is not that languish made us what we are today, but that we made languish what it is :ph34r:
:weep:
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2011, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 14, 2011, 01:41:17 PM
This place has made us, such a bunch of asshole. I fear for my kid :(
I think we're just a bunch of assholes that found eachother :D . Many have come and fallen by the wayside. only the true assholes remain. The sad truth is not that languish made us what we are today, but that we made languish what it is :ph34r:
An interesting theory, but ultimately I think you are wrong.
Insensitivity on the scale of a forum like Languish (and let's not kid ourselves, on an internetional [yes, it was deliberate] scale we're kittens playing with yarn) needs to be carefully nurtured and tempered. Too much, too soon, and the core cadre of loutish brutes can't form. Too little, too late and the prospects move on to browner pastures.
Languish represents that fine balance that lets our assholes grow without tearing. :hmm:
But I don't think of myself as an asshole... :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2011, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 05:12:27 AM
This is a tangent, but I've joined another forum (I know, I'm a traitor) to do with health and fitness. The membership is mainly female and mainly American. I'm completely shocked at how Yank women define themselves by their partners and families. No joke, about half the forum names are along the lines of:
clintswifemomof4
amysmommy
stayhomemom78
brunosbabe
What's up with that?!
Unsurprisingly, there's a fair amount of breakdowns when they find themselves abandoned.
Welcome to my hell. <_<
When I dared to self-identify without using "momtotwinsplustwomoreandahusbandtoboot", there was much shock.. and banishment. I avoid the Mommy-pages like the plague because of that, too. Women are an extension of their children and husband and have little value beyond that in our culture. Oh joy!
:x
teh wymmins are their own worst enemies, as they say :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 14, 2011, 04:10:37 PM
But I don't think of myself as an asshole... :unsure:
I think of you that way twice as much in order to make up the difference.