colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Girls are encouraged to be smart, creative, ambitious, while boys are pushed into sports, violence, and selling lies. Female doctors are idolized because they are challenging antiquated notions of gender roles... meanwhile nobody gives a rat's ass about a male doctor who worked just as hard, if not harder just because he happens to be part of the master class. What kind of message do you suppose that sends to a child who is considering his future, will he study hard to fill some position somewhere that nobody cares about or settle for what he can get? Why do you think this is happening then? If you ask me it's the cause and effect of the same people who try to specifically place people into gender roles to begin with.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Girls are encouraged to be smart, creative, ambitious, while boys are pushed into sports, violence, and selling lies. Female doctors are idolized because they are challenging antiquated notions of gender roles... meanwhile nobody gives a rat's ass about a male doctor who worked just as hard, if not harder just because he happens to be part of the master class. What kind of message do you suppose that sends to a child who is considering his future, will he study hard to fill some position somewhere that nobody cares about or settle for what he can get? Why do you think this is happening then? If you ask me it's the cause and effect of the same people who try to specifically place people into gender roles to begin with.... Actually, it's because you have people placing more emphasis on trying to "correct" for those gender roles rather than acknowledging that men and women are not biologically, psychologically, or socially equal, so there will always be some amount of inequality. You cannot praise and fight for one side while making light of the other. You cannot build up the roles of women while you erode the roles of men and expect to have a functioning society. Just as it isn't right to force a person into a given role and value the entirety of their being just on what plumbing they happen to posses, it is also wrong to say that their gender is of zero consequence when clearly this is not the case. When I was taking linguistics and classes for teaching English, in the majority of my classes I was the only male. Despite the fact that I was confident in my own ability, it did make it hard to associate with classmates and made me feel like I didn't belong. Being greeted by "Good evening ladies" at the start of class, then being singled out because I was an exception and therefore a mistake was made didn't help. Psychology classes were a similar story, just because it was a required part of the nursing curriculum. The gender inequality is not just something Republicans decided to piece together, it's part of our language, our culture, everything we eat, purchase, wear, and consume for entertainment. To say it doesn't matter when trying to factor in something like wage, profession, or cost of living is simply short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Girls are encouraged to be smart, creative, ambitious, while boys are pushed into sports, violence, and selling lies. Female doctors are idolized because they are challenging antiquated notions of gender roles... meanwhile nobody gives a rat's ass about a male doctor who worked just as hard, if not harder just because he happens to be part of the master class. Why do you think this is happening then? If you ask me it's the cause and effect of the same people who try to specifically place people into gender roles to begin with.... Actually, it's because you have people placing more emphasis on trying to "correct" for those gender roles rather than acknowledging that men and women are not biologically equal, so there will always be some amount of inequality. You cannot praise and fight for one side while making light of the other. You cannot build up the roles of women while you erode the roles of men and expect to have a functioning society. Just as it isn't right to force a person into a given role and value the entirety of their being just on what plumbing they happen to posses, it is also wrong to say that their gender is of zero consequence when clearly this is not the case. ...while it may not be fair, the world isn't fair. Like you have articulated before, the world is not fair... Maybe it's not fair, but doesn't mean we can't strive to make them fair regardless of gender.... pay equity is a strive for fairness even if biologically we are not equal. Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 ...while it may not be fair, the world isn't fair. Like you have articulated before, the world is not fair... Maybe it's not fair, but doesn't mean we can't strive to make them fair regardless of gender.... pay equity is a strive for fairness even if biologically we are not equal. But, as I keep pointing out, pay differences is BECAUSE of the various social and biological differences between genders... Rather than being the CAUSE of various social and biological differences. While economic change can bring about social change, it still requires an existing framework to keep things in balance. How many women's liberation organizations would be in favor of equal pay if it also meant that they could no longer exclude men from getting grants or scholarships which are now being given solely to women? How many women would actively seek out and pay for dates with men? How many women in existing positions would give up the prestige of being a woman in that field and being able to demand those below her to work as hard as they did (or how hard they remember working) because now, suddenly, it's supposed to be equal? Even if you exclude gender, there are other reasons for differing wages, ranging from race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, presence of disease, general appearance, age, or simply how these groupings of individuals has a tendency of pushing towards certain professions, meanwhile making it much harder to progress in others. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, but what I am saying is that there cannot be any improvement when it is singularly focused on only one small part of a much greater issue. *edit*Let's approach this from another perspective... Exactly what is wrong with the notion of gender roles as a whole? What is wrong with having some clear direction from birth which explains what part you will play in society? For the greatest part of human civilization the person you would be within society would have been largely decided at birth, and usually only changed by drastic consequences or sudden demand. Sure, there may be people who do not fit into these roles, but why should that be the expected and encouraged norm instead of simply providing pathways for those who are natural exceptions? Shouldn't exceptional people be acknowledge for being exceptional, and not just because they're challenging some established norm because that's what they've been told to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONKENFAP Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm pretty naive here but what are the jobs that actually pay women less for doing the same thing? I though the various discrimination acts prevented that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) But, as I keep pointing out, pay differences is BECAUSE of the various social and biological differences between genders... Rather than being the CAUSE of various social and biological differences. While economic change can bring about social change, it still requires an existing framework to keep things in balance. How many women's liberation organizations would be in favor of equal pay if it also meant that they could no longer exclude men from getting grants or scholarships which are now being given solely to women? How many women would actively seek out and pay for dates with men? How many women in existing positions would give up the prestige of being a woman in that field and being able to demand those below her to work as hard as they did (or how hard they remember working) because now, suddenly, it's supposed to be equal? Let me tell you something... Quite the the contrary women's liberation organizations would feel their goal would be complete if it came to including males getting grants and scholarships in fact it would probably completely reform the organizations to include equality for males. You see organizations reform all the time when their ultimate goals are met..... When I go out on a date, I never "expect" a man to pay for my dinner. Usually they feel compelled to pay for the date.... I would rather pay for my own meal instead of feeling like I owe them something (which translate to sleeping with them) for paying for my part (in fact I have hardly ever paid for any dates I have been on the last year even though I know I make more money then most males I have dated... ). Even if you exclude gender, there are other reasons for differing wages, ranging from race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, presence of disease, general appearance, age, or simply how these groupings of individuals has a tendency of pushing towards certain professions, meanwhile making it much harder to progress in others. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, but what I am saying is that there cannot be any improvement when it is singularly focused on only one small part of a much greater issue. But you see Pay equity isn't solely about just making sure women are paid equally. In fact it's larger than that. It's about insuring no matter your race or gender you will be paid the same amount for doing the same job.... Let's approach this from another perspective... Exactly what is wrong with the notion of gender roles as a whole? What is wrong with having some clear direction from birth which explains what part you will play in society? For the greatest part of human civilization the person you would be within society would have been largely decided at birth, and usually only changed by drastic consequences or sudden demand. Sure, there may be people who do not fit into these roles, but why should that be the expected and encouraged norm instead of simply providing pathways for those who are natural exceptions? Shouldn't exceptional people be acknowledge for being exceptional, and not just because they're challenging some established norm because that's what they've been told to do? There is nothing wrong about gender roles. The point is gender shouldn't be a factor on how much one is paid in the work place no more than it should be a factor on age, race, or even personality... Edit: Let me give you a prime example.... A man comes back from a military tour and unfortunately loses one hand. A friend of mine finds they are still being paid the same amount and is able to keep his job (rightly so) once he comes back. She finds out later that over the past two years she was being paid almost $2,000 less than her co-worker a year who had to take leave for military even though she has never missed a day of work in her life (sadly there is not much she can do about it now). In fact the man got a raise even though she is able to perform almost twice as better than him after he has lost one of his hands. Do you think this man should be paid less now that he has one less working hand? More so why isn't she being paid the same amount as her co-working who ended up leaving the work place for almost 4 months? Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 There is nothing wrong about gender roles. The point is gender shouldn't be a factor on how much one is paid in the work place no more than it should be a factor on age, race, or even personality... So then, as someone who was running a business and were looking to hire someone for a position, and were expecting them to remain in that position for several years, but you were faced with the decision between; a 22 year old, male who was a fresh graduate, a 36 year old male who has the same degree, a 24 year old woman with the same degree, and a 63 year old male with the same degree, that you would weigh their capability of maintaining that position equally? Not a chance. The 36 year old would probably have more life experience to bring to the table than both the 22 and the 24 year old. Meanwhile the 63 year old, while also probably possessing substantially more experience than the 36 year old, may be more set in their ways, have trouble adapting, or simply be more prone to sickness, or just be considering retirement in 5-10 years. Employers make these sorts of decisions all the time, and usually because they HAVE to decide on someone to hire while still wanting to choose the individual who has the greatest statistical chance of bringing the most to the company and keeping there. As for who pays for the meal... The thing is that if you split the check, it makes the whole encounter more ambiguous, where there is no "owing anyone" for a night. Only a scumbag would expect sex after buying a dinner. The "owing them" is to signify that a continued relationship is desired, opening the "owed" party the ability to decide if they want to continue pursuing that relationship or cut their losses. The nuance is important, even if unspoken, even if unacknowledged, the sole act of dating is all about a power exchange. Having nobody take the lead, or maintaining that lead through action just ends up confusing the hell out of both parties because they don't know what is expected of them by the other. Even if this is cleared up and accepted, it can still lead to problems involving intimacy, bonding, and general lovelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) @Varant0 Maybe age was a bad example.... But I hope you get my point regardless of age.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 @Varant0 Maybe age was a bad example.... But I hope you get my point regardless of age....Okay, then how about personality. Would you weigh applicants equally if one of them was always pessimistic, argumentative, made the impression that they were always nervous, had trouble maintaining eye contact, or were a compulsive liar? Obviously not because these sorts of people would be more likely to leave a bad impression on customers, create problems between co-workers, or just impact their ability to do consistent and reliable work. As for your example... Clearly the issue here is that his employers acknowledge his sacrifice for his country, understand that he will probably not be able to find work somewhere else, so are deciding to give him extra consideration instead of force him to the life on the street that would await him otherwise. The woman could likely find other work if she was fired or wanted more money. Meanwhile a man in the same position would likely just shrug it off, understand that there was more to the situation than just performance, and probably take it upon themselves if there was any shortcomings because it would reflect better on them as being part of the "team", even if it didn't necessarily give them a raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Okay, then how about personality. Would you weigh applicants equally if one of them was always pessimistic, argumentative, made the impression that they were always nervous, had trouble maintaining eye contact, or were a compulsive liar? Obviously not because these sorts of people would be more likely to leave a bad impression on customers, create problems between co-workers, or just impact their ability to do consistent and reliable work. As for your example... Clearly the issue here is that his employers acknowledge his sacrifice for his country, understand that he will probably not be able to find work somewhere else, so are deciding to give him extra consideration instead of force him to the life on the street that would await him otherwise. The woman could likely find other work if she was fired or wanted more money. Meanwhile a man in the same position would likely just shrug it off, understand that there was more to the situation than just performance, and probably take it upon themselves if there was any shortcomings because it would reflect better on them as being part of the "team", even if it didn't necessarily give them a raise. Unless there is a job that is specific to the need of a certain personality, it's hardly reasonable to discriminate for this.... In fact there are other laws that already protect people from this type of discrimination, in various anti-discrimination acts in the work place. In regards you to your reply to my example.... Whether or not you believe what the employer did as being the "moral" thing to do for a man who put his time defending the country who lost one of his hands, seems more like the employer "pandering" to him to me when you look at other situations where as if women loses a limbs from battle who hardly even get the same "opportunity"... Not even taking into account usually a female would just be let go from their job and this is not even taking into account they were probably being paid less than their male counter parts to begin with.... Don't get me wrong this is just my opinion on her situation. She ended up quitting her job and started her own successful company anyways.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts