Originally posted by Jade Constable:
@ Desert Daughter
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What an appalling bit of misogyny.
quote:This is a sweeping generalisation! There is nothing wrong with good daycare!
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The family is the primary unit of society. A safe haven from "society". A child who grows up in "society" (daycare etc) and not in a family will never learn to see society with an analytical, critical eye. He will never know that the basic unit of social life is that of kin and loved ones, the "outside world" being, well, outside. The child who does most of his growing-up up in a family will be better able to be an individual, himself, with a strengthened and distinctive character.
quote:I think the question is the wrong way around. Workplaces are designed to maximise profits for employers. Of course employers want to incentivise employees as that makes them work harder and part of this involves promoting the ideas that salaries have something to do with 'fairness'. In reality the fact that one workers wages cost more than another's is no more to do with fairness than the fact that apples and pears have different prices in a grocery shop.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids? The Canadian support for mothers is 1 year of maternity leave, using (un)employment insurance to pay a small percent of actually salary. On return to work, everyone is stressed due to daycare issues, dual family career focus, and everything else.
I wonder, I really wonder what could be done to improve it all. How about requiring daycares at work? how about starting work days at 9:30 a.m.? How about breast feeding kids at board meetings? Having kids transported to the office for after school care there? And why not? What do you think?
quote:For most women just as for most men their work is not a 'fulfilling career', its a boring treadmill that they climb onto because they have to pay the bills. Only a minority of either sex have a 'fulfilling career'.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
@ Desert Daughter
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children.
What an appalling bit of misogyny.
quote:Yes, I do. Because the workplace is based on an outdated view of 9-5 work by a man who has a wife at home taking care of all domestic issues on his behalf. This system is bad for parents in general, not just women, but women are disproportionately affected because of the social pressure related to working mothers - women are made to feel guilty for working when they have children.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
quote:Agreed. I read a fascinating article about this a couple of years ago, which pointed that 'standard hours' were worked out during the Industrial Revolution, as a means of preventing factory owners from working their employees until they dropped. A major point of the article was that a direct relationship between hours worked and productivity made sense in manufacturing (and thus, the laws on standard hours were required to prevent over-maximising productivity), but doesn't make sense in a huge array of modern jobs.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There is an obsession with "face time" in many jobs - if you are there for 1 more hour than Bob you are working harder than Bob. This is completely wrong from an efficiency standpoint and in white collar work makes no sense at all.
quote:I think the point is that since your children didn’t ask to be born, you can’t expect to put your personal fulfilment in front of their needs in all circumstances. You brought them into the world, you have a responsibility to do what’s best for them and sometimes that involves choosing an option that’s less enjoyable for you. Whether it is in children’s best interests for their mother to be bored and frustrated (I suspect I would make a very bad housewife) is a separate question.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yeah, how dare a woman prefer a fulfilling career to staying home with her children.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
quote:At the risk of being painted as some weirdo MRA - it might actually be worse for men who choose to stay at home and look after the kids.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do you see your workplace as penalizing mothers, stopping their advance because they had the temerity to try to do career and kids?
quote:This argument gets weaker though if they expect to be handed a cookie for their wonderful diversity policies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On the other hand, companies would argue that they're not charities, and their employees' private arrangements are just that. Private.
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:Well yes, but then it should be clear that it's about both parents (including same-gender couples) sharing childcare, and not about chaining women to Kinder, Kirche and Kuche.
Originally posted by Edith:
Jade, I don't think DD or those who agree with her, in whole or impart, are misogynists. I have been involved in feminist campaigns for fifty years and still am. But after all those years it seems me that the most important matter, for women and for men, is the proper care and nurture of children. That care is, I think, best provided for the majority of the time, at home with parents or close extended family with whom the child can form a close attachment. It's society / the neoliberal hegemony, that needs to change. Of course women as well as men should have the right to participate in the workplace for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn't have to be for forty plus years without a break. It is perfectly possible, if the political will was there, for mothers AND fathers to work part time and to share the upbringing of their children. This is most important in the first three years when the child develops more rapidly than at any other time and when the basis of loving relationships are formed. If this became the norm, then all workplaces could and would adapt to manage the deployment of the workforce.
quote:Is the fact that women have to choose between a career and their family their fault, or the fault of the way the career system has been designed?
Desert Daughter: If a couple has children, they have founded a family. And that family must have priority.
quote:If you think that is all that is involved in being a stay-at-home mother you are sadly misinformed!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:As much as I hate interacting with other adults, this. Yes, there are rewards, but they tend to be reaped much later on in life - at the time it's pretty much a shit-smelling grind.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
quote:Interesting idea, but it would only work if it's for a first degree or it's restricted by age. Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thoughts?
quote:Indeed. There's dealing with squabbles, responding to demands that invariably come the moment your arse touches the settee with a coffee in hand, sprinting to the school when one of them falls over and cracks his head open, and distinguishing between constipation, overeating and a ruse to avoid clearing the table.
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:If you think that is all that is involved in being a stay-at-home mother you are sadly misinformed!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:It's more like "all mothers have to work because families can't pay the bills on one income."
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have, in one generation, moved from 'no mother should work' to 'all mothers should work' -
quote:And that would be a bad thing, how? It's not the primary target of the policy, but if families are willing to take the earnings hit for the woman to quit her job for child-raising, then I would consider it positive if the state paid for her getting more qualified at the same time with view to a later return to work.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interesting idea, but it would only work if it's for a first degree or it's restricted by age. Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
quote:I'm not sure if you already had a PhD at that age, or perhaps would have found a second degree in a different field useful. Then you could have combined that with having a child. 24 is hardly late for having a child these days. Also I think society may well shift for the better if there is competition for serious "husband / wife material" in the early twenties. If a considerable fraction of people are looking for genuine partners at that age, it will have an impact on overall behaviour patterns in that age group. Basically, I'm not sure that you would have had that boyfriend, or that that boyfriend would have been as impossible, if society had reshaped to make young families common. Anyway, no social policy benefits all or avoids all problems.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It also seems to only work for people who find a suitable partner at a young age. I didn't meet my husband until I was 24 so even if such a benefit existed, it wouldn't have helped. If anything it might have encouraged me to settle for my university boyfriend and have a child with him, which would have been nothing short of a disaster.
quote:I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:You are right but only in retrospect. I spent six years being utterly exhausted.
Originally posted by Edith:
Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
quote:I'm a happy mother of two lovely children, but based on the two years I was at home full time, I think Jade's opinion is valid and certainly doesn't reflect negatively on how she would cut it as a mum, should she feel the calling.
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:She may well make an excellent parent, however, I still feel that her comments sounded quite disparaging of parents who find bringing up children more, or just as, rewarding than being in the workplace. There's plenty of room for all points of view but I don't thing generalisations are helpful - or for that matter, assertions about child rearing which seem to be based on little evidence.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I'm a happy mother of two lovely children, but based on the two years I was at home full time, I think Jade's opinion is valid and certainly doesn't reflect negatively on how she would cut it as a mum, should she feel the calling.
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
quote:It wouldn't be - it would be fantastic as would help women gain skills so that they can go back to work when their children are older. But it wouldn't in itself address directly the issue of age of mothers.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that would be a bad thing, how?
quote:Not a PhD, but a masters. And he also already had one. I can't imagine the taxpayer would delight in paying for either of us to get another degree for free because we've had a child.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure if you already had a PhD at that age, or perhaps would have found a second degree in a different field useful. Then you could have combined that with having a child. 24 is hardly late for having a child these days.
quote:A man is more likely to be able to get away with holding this view than a woman. Which again, I think, reflects on societal norms, not on some genuine difference in how men and women feel about repetitive, mundane activity/children.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except the point of view that finds the day to day realities of looking after young children rather trying, unrewarding and unfulfilling, it appears.
quote:Au Contraire, I wish someone had warned me what it was really like. I'd still have had children, but I'd have been better prepared and less disappointed with the reality. Dirty nappies and being piddled on by babies are the fun bits.
Originally posted by Edith:
Oh dear, poor soul! And yes as a mother and grandmother and as someone who has been involved in education as well as family law all her live, I'm well aware that there are many down sides as well as many joys to being a parent
At the tresent time I look after two small grandsons three days a week and while it's tiring it's never dull and observing their developing intellect and skills and social awareness is a never ending delight.
. And, as I said above, there is room for all points of view and everyone should make their own choices about becoming a parent. I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
quote:Why not? It's not all like that. But a lot of it is. Sometimes it was simply a triumph to get to the end of the day in the same clothes everyone started with.
Originally posted by Edith:
I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
quote:IIRC, they're the bits when you actually know what you're *meant* to be doing, unlike the rest of the time.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Dirty nappies and being piddled on by babies are the fun bits.
quote:Who's underplaying? Not me. Bringing up children is one of the most demanding - and rewarding things I've ever done. And, I have no idea where your shangri la image above comes from, not one I've ever encountered except from a few dinosaurs who needed reeducating.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Why not? It's not all like that. But a lot of it is. Sometimes it was simply a triumph to get to the end of the day in the same clothes everyone started with.
Originally posted by Edith:
I just don't think it's helpful to those parents who have chosen or who are able to stay at home to imply that bringing up children equates to mind blowingly dull days and total exhaustion.
Underplaying the demands of the role means that 'going out to work' ends up looking like actual work, while 'staying home with the kids' ends up looking like one long round of coffee mornings, walks in the park and happy, healthy mealtimes - barely work at all, more a five-year extended holiday.
quote:Actually, it is you. Go back and read what you've written, and you'll see why a bunch of us have taken agin it.
Originally posted by Edith:
Who's underplaying? Not me. Bringing up children is one of the most demanding - and rewarding things I've ever done. And, I have no idea where your shangri la image above comes from, not one I've ever encountered except from a few dinosaurs who needed reeducating.
quote:"never dull"
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread.
quote:You are heartily sick of people whose experience isn't the same as yours. Do you think these people are lying or something?
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread. I have never implied that parenthood is a bed of roses. But I AM heartily sick of people who seem to think that there are few pleasures and an excess of pain in being around children.
quote:We don't rubbish it. We give an accurate description of our experience of it.
I really do wonder sometimes why they feel the need to rubbish bringing up children and focus on the downside.
quote:Then I can only say that I feel sorry that your experiences were so devoid of pleasure. Just accept that your experience is not the only way to view parenthood.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:You are heartily sick of people whose experience isn't the same as yours. Do you think these people are lying or something?
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread. I have never implied that parenthood is a bed of roses. But I AM heartily sick of people who seem to think that there are few pleasures and an excess of pain in being around children.
That is not what I'm saying and your selective quotes do you no credit. I do not accuse anyone of lying as you very well know, I made it abundantly clear in posts unthread that there are many experiences of bringing up children. Some love it some loathe and most see both pleasure and pain. Please don't distort what I have said.
quote:We don't rubbish it. We give an accurate description of our experience of it.
I really do wonder sometimes why they feel the need to rubbish bringing up children and focus on the downside.
quote:I aim squarely at that. Basically, I intend to advantage those who "risk" children early, by financing their higher education or vocational training. Once a few people have used this scheme successfully, I think perceptions will start to change. A child costs something like £9-12k per year, slowly rising as they grow older. As it happens, most UK universities now charge tuition fees of around £9k per year (though less for PGs). Thus basically the state ends up paying for up to the first five years of having a child, if you are willing to combine your own education with child rearing (possibly the education of your partner with your own child rearing, one can take advantage of this scheme as a family, not just as an individual). Whereas there are no benefits for those who "play safe" and instead attempt to "have it made" before they even consider having children. It is it is an incentive worth up to £45k just from one child. I think plenty of people will consider taking that bet against their future, at least eventually.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most educated young people don't want to have a child without a stable home (preferably owned) which is the main factor I see among my friends (late 20s/early 30s age group).
quote:I would rather "waste" some money on over-qualifying some mothers and fathers, than see many people struggling to combine raising young kids with demanding work, and many other people not daring to have kids until it is too late. However, it is not the case that educating yourself ever further, even if someone else pays for it, continues to be optimal. First, you still have to support yourself, it's not like you can make a living out of having children there. Second, you are spending time and effort on this, and having three degrees is not going to give you threefold chances to land a three times better paid job. There is a point of optimal return there. Or rather, there are many, as individuals have different priorities, but I do not think that many people will choose to have a dozen children in order to obtain a dozen degrees! One could indeed add a rule like "at most one Bachelor, one Master, and one PhD per person", if this becomes an issue.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I can't imagine the taxpayer would delight in paying for either of us to get another degree for free because we've had a child.
quote:I can identify with this (though not in relation to climbing). I do sometimes tell mine that I'm finding something I have to do with them dull. And they sometimes tell me that something they have to do with me is dull. I think this is healthy and normal and part of family life and learning to live with other people.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Example - tomorrow I'm taking the boys to their climbing club. One day, when they're older, it'll be great to spend weekends in the mountains. But at the moment it means having to be up at 8 on a Saturday, chivvying them along to have their breakfast, chivvying them into shoes and coats, sitting in a leisure centre café for an hour and a half (not my idea of an inspiring environment), then driving them home again. Yes, there's some pleasure in seeing their achievements and their progress, but the on the ground reality of it isn't something I particularly relish.
quote:Actually, I have a lot of experience of young children - that's how I know that I much prefer the company of adults and find being around children for extended periods of time to be incredibly dull.
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
quote:No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
quote:Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
quote:You can have good or cheap - pick one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision,
quote:All true. But it doesn't have to stay true. We can change the world to suit ourselves if we want. We don't have to meekly obey the orders our bosses give us just because they have more money in their bank accounts than we do, or some piece of paper that says they own loads of stuff and we don't. There are more of us then them. All we need to is co-operate and work together for what we want and it would happen. The current way politics and economics are ordered is not a law of nature, any more than the varous ways society was ordered in the past were entirely due to laws of nature. These things too shall pass.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Workplaces are designed to maximise profits for employers. Of course employers want to incentivise employees as that makes them work harder and part of this involves promoting the ideas that salaries have something to do with 'fairness'. In reality the fact that one workers wages cost more than another's is no more to do with fairness than the fact that apples and pears have different prices in a grocery shop.
quote:Also true. But it doesn't have to be that way. We could change it.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
For most women just as for most men their work is not a 'fulfilling career', its a boring treadmill that they climb onto because they have to pay the bills. Only a minority of either sex have a 'fulfilling career'.
quote:Then if we need it we find another way to provide it. Other times and places have, why not here and now?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On employers providing day-care – it is only possible in large structures.
quote:Sounds good to me...
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
quote:I still remember the joy and happiness of the Saturday morning when my daughter came into my bedroom and I said, for the first time ever, "I'm going back to sleep, get your own breakfast".
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Frankly I'd rather a lie-in and a fried breakfast, then out on the bike for 30 miles or so. Can't really do that much with children.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I think she was about nine.quote:Hear hear!
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
quote:There seems to be an ought here - your posts don't appear to appreciate that some women want to stay at home and bring up their children full time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:But I've already said that there's not. Do you think I'm lying?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:There seems to be an ought here - your posts don't appear to appreciate that some women want to stay at home and bring up their children full time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Often they don't choose. In my case, it was a simple economic decision: Mrs Tor earned over twice what I did.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:Interesting and innovative.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thoughts?
quote:How many people really enjoy their work? By that I mean how many people, if they were freed from the necessity of earning money would be willing to continue to do their work anyway. A small minority to be found mainly within certain types of jobs. As for satisfaction what is really satisfying is having spending money. Whether or not someone else has done the work to get it is secondary. I can understand your point about the satisfaction of 'having earned it yourself' but is that satisfaction really worth the unpleasantness of working all day?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
quote:Given that most men do not find their work fulfilling at all that's not really saying much.
Anyway, the point I was making was more that women are as capable of finding a career more fulfilling than being a stay-at-home parent as men are.
quote:Why do you think most people choose the tedium of getting jobs?
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:I genuinely enjoy working and would continue even if I didn't have to for financial reasons.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:How many people really enjoy their work? By that I mean how many people, if they were freed from the necessity of earning money would be willing to continue to do their work anyway. A small minority to be found mainly within certain types of jobs. As for satisfaction what is really satisfying is having spending money. Whether or not someone else has done the work to get it is secondary. I can understand your point about the satisfaction of 'having earned it yourself' but is that satisfaction really worth the unpleasantness of working all day?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
quote:Given that most men do not find their work fulfilling at all that's not really saying much.
Anyway, the point I was making was more that women are as capable of finding a career more fulfilling than being a stay-at-home parent as men are.
quote:Why do you think most people choose the tedium of getting jobs?
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:You think office work is pleasant? I suppose its less unpleasant than cleaning sewers or slaughterhouse floors but I wouldn't really call it pleasant
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
quote:Of course not! You have ovaries, therefore must love children (and kittens).
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
quote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-top-job-satisfaction-survey-1.2430864
Canadian workers are among the happiest in the world, with nearly two-thirds saying they love or like their job a lot, according a study for job website Monster.ca.
The survey found that 24 per cent of Canadians love their job so much they’d do it for free and 40 per cent say enjoy what they do, but "could like it more." About 29 per cent said they like it "well enough for now."
quote:Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
quote:So of the 64% of Canadians who claim to like their jobs most don't actually like their jobs enough that they would still do them if they had a real choice. I also rather suspect some (and possibly much) of that 24% are kidding themselves, making a virtue of necessity.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.quote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-top-job-satisfaction-survey-1.2430864
Canadian workers are among the happiest in the world, with nearly two-thirds saying they love or like their job a lot, according a study for job website Monster.ca.
The survey found that 24 per cent of Canadians love their job so much they’d do it for free and 40 per cent say enjoy what they do, but "could like it more." About 29 per cent said they like it "well enough for now."
quote:That's so not what JC said that it qualifies as Not Even Wrong (qv).
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
quote:You must be very lucky. I can't imagine wanting to turn up to my workplace even if I didn't need the money.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I genuinely enjoy working and would continue even if I didn't have to for financial reasons.
quote:Not what I said. I am well aware that SAHP don't spend all their time watching TV and singing (but used it as shorthand since the majority of SAHP will do those things at some point), I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable? If it's so difficult and dull, surely it's quite normal for people to not want to do it? But then I forgot, as a woman it's my duty to want to spend my time looking after children...
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
quote:Not for me. Caring for children is tedious for me whether there's a paycheck involved or not.
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, according to the Guttmacher Institute, only about half the pregnancies launched in any given year in the U.S. are planned by the couple doing the canoodling which launches the pregnancy. I don't know what this says to you, but to me it says that roughly half of yearly pregnancies (minus the relatively few which get terminated and the other few which lead to an adoption agency) of Americans of childbearing age are entered into childcare with astonishing haphazardness.
Second, childminders have been discussed on this thread. Granted, these folks get paid peanuts. The point, though, is they get paid. This means something, too: it's a recognition that childcare is work. It's work which generates wages, may have a few little benefits thrown in, and so on.
Until, ta-dah, that work is performed by a parent.
How many other paying occupations do we have where the question of compensation or wages turns solely on there being a blood tie to the one being cared for?
The fact is that caring -- whether done in a nursing home, a daycare, or in various other settings -- is an actual occupation. Some people enjoy doing this work; others don't.
Why not create a kind of umbrella agency where those who wish to provide care sign up and get a paycheck for doing what is plain, honest work? Why don't we, while we're at it, provide support and training for those who elect to provide such care? It shouldn't matter a damn whether it's your own family member you're caring for, or whether you're doing it on behalf of someone who doesn't enjoy that role and prefers a different occupation.
In 1814, most of what we call "work" was done in a family setting by ordinary people; the division between "work" and "family life" was, for most, far less sharp and clear.
By 1914, much of this had changed. "Work" had turned into an activity carried on outside the home in factories and mills. The domestic sphere became a separate place inhabited by children too young to work, elders too frail to work, and women who stayed behind to to make sure the first two didn't burn the place down or maim themselves, plus manage all the domestic chores and tend a garden and supervise the hired hand, etc. all for free.
Now in 2014, we still seem undecided about what "work" is. I can't help wondering if those who find childrearing tedious or oppressive might feel better about it, and put a little more spit into it if they got a paycheck in return?
quote:Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
quote:I would rather do any job (well, not one working with children clearly, but any other job). Perhaps it's because of years not working because of circumstances out of my control, but I really do not enjoy not working and find it dull. On the other hand, when I have worked, even in jobs that weren't really what I wanted to do, I got a lot of satisfaction from doing the job to the best of my ability.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
Also if you don't mind me asking what job is it that you do that you would actually do if you didn't have to?
quote:First off, Jade, I get you and do not feel insulted (as a teacher.)Basically because of what Lucia just wrote-- caring for children in group settings takes a specific skill set, temperament, and knowledge base.
Originally posted by Lucia:
It seems a bit pointless to argue over what we as individuals prefer as our work! There's always going to be a lot of variation in that.
And anyway, teaching or nursery care is not the same as parenting your own children. I like looking after my own children (most of the time!) but I have no great desire to take care of lots of other people's for extended periods!
quote:What you've just said, in effect, is that even if money wasn't an issue in the decision you'd rather do any job (including sewer maintenance and working in a slaughterhouse but not including childcare) rather than spend the time with your own children.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So, yeah, for me in a decision between spending unpaid time with my (hypothetical) children and doing a 'boring' paid job, I would pick the job every time.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So yeah, it's beneficial for a woman to examine her temperament, skill set and inclinations and exclude herself from the job of childcare if she is not wholeheartedly convinced she is cut out for it-- because man, it sucks to work with someone who hates their line of work.
quote:The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
quote:I think myself and a lot of other feminists would take issue with the idea that because feminism has been exploited by capitalism, it has 'succeeded'. Women being able to have the same career opportunities as men is not the only goal of feminism by a long way.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:What you've just said, in effect, is that even if money wasn't an issue in the decision you'd rather do any job (including sewer maintenance and working in a slaughterhouse but not including childcare) rather than spend the time with your own children.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So, yeah, for me in a decision between spending unpaid time with my (hypothetical) children and doing a 'boring' paid job, I would pick the job every time.
I appreciate that's how you feel. I hope you can also appreciate that most people wouldn't feel like that and that the reason feminism has been allowed to succeed is exactly because it has been needed to expand the workforce in the interests of employers.
quote:Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:I'm sure most feminists don't think of themselves as serving the interests of capitalism. That does not alter the fact that feminist ideas have only been allowed to spread exactly because they can be used to further the interests of employers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
quote:I didn't say all did I?
Also, yeah, stay at home mothers don't exist at all and all women are forced to enter the workforce
quote:I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I'm sure most feminists don't think of themselves as serving the interests of capitalism. That does not alter the fact that feminist ideas have only been allowed to spread exactly because they can be used to further the interests of employers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
quote:I didn't say all did I?
Also, yeah, stay at home mothers don't exist at all and all women are forced to enter the workforce
quote:I'll rephrase that then. To the extent that feminism has been permitted to succeed it has been allowed to do so because it serves the interest of employers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think myself and a lot of other feminists would take issue with the idea that because feminism has been exploited by capitalism, it has 'succeeded'. Women being able to have the same career opportunities as men is not the only goal of feminism by a long way.
quote:I wouldn't agree that they do. If men tend to be more 'career driven' than women its because there is more social pressure for them to be so.
Also, I find having to explain and justify my preference of paid work compared to being a stay at home parent to be rather suspect anyway - men get to prefer working to being a SAHP all the time and it's never questioned.
quote:Most people don't however. They might think their job is 'alright', they might take pride in their ability to do it well, they might even claim they would still do if they had the choice not to. However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
Plenty of people DO enjoy their jobs.
quote:Feminist ideas would never had spread if feminists had not been able to spread their ideas through the media, through publishing and through the universities and education.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
quote:And then, in about 6 months, they would slowly realise that they are getting bored out of their bloody minds.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
quote:Actually much feminism started in American universities, which are mostly not government-funded.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Feminist ideas would never had spread if feminists had not been able to spread their ideas through the media, through publishing and through the universities and education.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
To put in crude terms the media and publishing are overwhelmingly controlled by the rich. Funding for Universities and education are controlled by governments who are friends of the rich.
quote:hosting/
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so fucking offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
quote:Not men in general (men in general have no power over such things) just the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so **** offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
quote:Not this woman.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
quote:Men by and large ARE the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Not men in general (men in general have no power over such things) just the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so **** offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
quote:The rich and powerful are disproportionately male. However the vast majority of men are neither rich nor powerful. Those men who are rich and powerful are, of course, not part of the workforce rather they are the people who employ the workforce. Therefore they obviously benefit from having a greatly expanded workforce.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Men by and large ARE the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Not men in general (men in general have no power over such things) just the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so **** offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
quote:Men as a gender are also in a position of power, ie the patriarchy. The patriarchy's existence is a fairly basic aspect of feminism - if you do not believe in the patriarchy then it is rather pointless (and pretty offensive) to talk about why feminism has happened.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:The rich and powerful are disproportionately male. However the vast majority of men are neither rich nor powerful. Those men who are rich and powerful are, of course, not part of the workforce rather they are the people who employ the workforce. Therefore they obviously benefit from having a greatly expanded workforce.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Men by and large ARE the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Not men in general (men in general have no power over such things) just the rich and powerful.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so **** offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
quote:Individual men are in positions of power. The rich and powerful (a clear majority of whom are men) are in a position of power. Men 'as a gender' though do not have power.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Men as a gender are also in a position of power, ie the patriarchy. The patriarchy's existence is a fairly basic aspect of feminism - if you do not believe in the patriarchy then it is rather pointless (and pretty offensive) to talk about why feminism has happened.
quote:Might help if you thought of it as 'gender privilege'. That individual Indian or Chinese boy may never gain much wealth or power - but he still has the edge over his aborted or abandoned sister. In a many societies, it will likely be the male who gets the chance at any available education - the Taliban have shot no boys for learning to read. At the very least, he will have a social freedom and a right to public spaces women can only dream of.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Men 'as a gender' though do not have power.
quote:I think that there is more to feminism than that. Jade Constable is saying, and I would tend to agree, that in order to be a feminist one has to believe that 'the patriarchy' exists. Your statement implies that if someone disagrees with feminism then they are agreeing that the patriarchy exists and they are defending it. That simply does not follow.
Originally posted by no prophet:
To become as feminist as a man might, having daughters motivates. Though if you don't love them, perhaps it is avoidable.
quote:If you are not one of the wealthy elite then you 'don't own this'. That's true whether you are male or female.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Even in our wonderful, enlightened Western world I, or any woman, could give you a history of discouragement, restriction and harassment that says: Not for you. You don't own this.
quote:I was carrying on from my previous paragraph - about public (as in outside the home) life and public space. If, for example, you've not had a lifetime of feigning deep interest in the other side of the street every time you pass two or more members of the opposite sex - and even so, receiving derogatory or obscene remarks - then you aren't aware of gender privilege.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:If you are not one of the wealthy elite then you 'don't own this'. That's true whether you are male or female.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Even in our wonderful, enlightened Western world I, or any woman, could give you a history of discouragement, restriction and harassment that says: Not for you. You don't own this.
quote:A couple of points to make. Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:I was carrying on from my previous paragraph - about public (as in outside the home) life and public space. If, for example, you've not had a lifetime of feigning deep interest in the other side of the street every time you pass two or more members of the opposite sex - and even so, receiving derogatory or obscene remarks - then you aren't aware of gender privilege.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:If you are not one of the wealthy elite then you 'don't own this'. That's true whether you are male or female.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Even in our wonderful, enlightened Western world I, or any woman, could give you a history of discouragement, restriction and harassment that says: Not for you. You don't own this.
quote:False. My Dad retired a decade ago, hasn't worked a single second since, and as far as I can tell is less bored with his life than he was when he was turning up at the office every day.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And then, in about 6 months, they would slowly realise that they are getting bored out of their bloody minds.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
quote:All and every kind of neighbourhood including leafy suburb. Until I achieved the invisibility of old age.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
quote:I should ask on average how frequently would you hear such obscene remarks when living in leafy suburbs?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:All and every kind of neighbourhood including leafy suburb. Until I achieved the invisibility of old age.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
quote:Ah, but I think it depends a great deal on whether you have a clear idea of what you want to do.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:False. My Dad retired a decade ago, hasn't worked a single second since, and as far as I can tell is less bored with his life than he was when he was turning up at the office every day.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And then, in about 6 months, they would slowly realise that they are getting bored out of their bloody minds.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
I can't understand the view that being able to do the things you want to do rather than the things your boss wants you to do would be boring.
quote:I can answer that one. Roughly every other day. And that was because I was fool enough to walk two miles to work daily (yes, all of it through the green, leafy surburbs), thereby exposing myself to catcalls, hoots, obscene gestures and occasional missiles from male assholes in cars. Almost always plural assholes.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I should ask on average how frequently would you hear such obscene remarks when living in leafy suburbs?
quote:Surely you jest. A decade ago when I lived in London, I heard catcalls directed at nearby women every time I walked past a building site, lads' night out, or pretty much anywhere else where groups of men gathered.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A couple of points to make. Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
quote:Just before Christmas I was in a busy and affluent shopping mall. One of the Army charities - not Help for Heroes - had been allowed to set up a stall selling some sort of fundraising item. Two young men in Army uniform were on the stall and presumably thought they were trying to attract custom by "banter" - even I, fat, frumpy and nearly 50, merited an "Oi! darlin' OI! DARLIN'!" Woman after woman was doing that stiffening up, hunching shoulders, taking great interest in the floor thing. The men were completely oblivious to the repeated signs of discomfort and unease they were generating. Completely oblivious to the fact that no-one was coming near their stall, and women were changing direction to avoid them.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:All and every kind of neighbourhood including leafy suburb. Until I achieved the invisibility of old age.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
quote:I imply nothing. I thought the premise of the post topic had some merit, both from the experience of having children and my wife's career interruption, and now seeing the same close to 30 years later. Some things have changed, but an awful lot is the same.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I think that there is more to feminism than that. Jade Constable is saying, and I would tend to agree, that in order to be a feminist one has to believe that 'the patriarchy' exists. Your statement implies that if someone disagrees with feminism then they are agreeing that the patriarchy exists and they are defending it. That simply does not follow.
Originally posted by no prophet:
To become as feminist as a man might, having daughters motivates. Though if you don't love them, perhaps it is avoidable.
quote:Firstly I wouldn't say that the words "Oi! Darlin'" were obscene. They were certainly rude and obnoxious but I don't think that's the same thing as being obscene. That's a lesser point though.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Just before Christmas I was in a busy and affluent shopping mall. One of the Army charities - not Help for Heroes - had been allowed to set up a stall selling some sort of fundraising item. Two young men in Army uniform were on the stall and presumably thought they were trying to attract custom by "banter" - even I, fat, frumpy and nearly 50, merited an "Oi! darlin' OI! DARLIN'!" Woman after woman was doing that stiffening up, hunching shoulders, taking great interest in the floor thing. The men were completely oblivious to the repeated signs of discomfort and unease they were generating. Completely oblivious to the fact that no-one was coming near their stall, and women were changing direction to avoid them.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:All and every kind of neighbourhood including leafy suburb. Until I achieved the invisibility of old age.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Firstly if you are receiving those kind of remarks every time (or even much of the time) that you go out then you are living in a bad neighbourhood.
of explaining to my nephew just what goes through the mind of a woman every time she leaves a well-lit building to walk to her car far out in the parking lot. It's a litany: Stand up straight and look confident; is anybody in the shadows over there? Walk quickly but don't look afraid; hold your keys in your fist so the sharp bit faces outward, in case you need to slash someone; and always check the backseat before you get in the freakin' car.quote:I can see that however many instances are quoted, you will always insist on exceptionalism. It's a bad neighbourhood or it's a good neighbourhood and your experience is untypical. These are bad people, but not sexist bad people.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Its got nothing to do with 'patriarchy', its simply the way that such unpleasant people display their unpleasant personalities differently to either sex.
quote:The people who tend to engage in this kind of rude, aggressive or violent behaviour will usually be rude aggressive or violent with men as well. This will not show itself in the same way (hence the lack of cat-calls) but that does not mean it is present.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Tommy1, reread what you just wrote. The men you speak of would be behaving obnoxiously to other men--IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. I have yet to see a man cat-called in a shopping mall, or propositioned on the street of the leafy suburbs.
quote:I've never heard anyone at work being described as 'too aggressive' (except possibly the occasional customer) so I can't really comment on that.
I have never in all my working career heard a man on management level described as "too aggressive," no matter what his management style, though it's a rare woman on management level who doesn't get this on a regular basis.
quote:You don't think that cowboy mechanics, plumbers and builders try to rip off men as well?
I have never seen a man called "sweetie" and "darling" at a car repair shop, while simultaneously being told that the engine will have to be yanked at a cost of at least $500 dollars--and warned of dire consequences to life and limb when he insists on getting a second opinion--only to take it across the street to a decent fellow who points to an ill-fitting hose and says, "See that? you could fix it yourself, no problem."
quote:As I pointed out earlier the majority of victims of violent sex crimes are women. The majority of the victims of non sexual violent crimes are men. Of course the smaller size of women and the more sexual nature of violent crimes against women would naturally tend to make women more fearful of violence than men and I can quite understand that. That does not mean however that the difference is the result of 'patriarchy'.
A few years ago I had the privilege
My nephew flat out refused to believe me, even though all the other women present confirmed what I told him. But for us, it's so automatic we don't even feel the fear anymore. Fear has become business as usual.
quote:By men being powerful I meant men as a gender forming the patriarchy, not individual men being in power.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
About (white) men being "rich and powerful" - most aren't, most never were. But back when (in USA) job ads were segregated by men only or women only (or occasionally both) and I wanted a "management trainee" type of job, the people in charge of hiring - all of them men but not rich or powerful by any measure except being in charge of hiring - explained to me they won't hire a woman because "she'll get married and quit the job."
The ideal is a new worker who will stick around for many years, the worse case is the worker you throw a lot of training into and just when they are finally useful they quit, you've wasted all that investment.
In an era when wives (of a certain economic class) were socially pressured to stay home even if they didn't have children, hiring a woman seemed a waste of corporate resources. The low level hiring guy would have to explain to his boss, who would have to report to his rich and powerful big boss - why the unusual hire was good for the company. For the little guy the risk of damaging his own career by bucking the social system was too big.
quote:Me neither. It's not a problem I have particularly encountered either.
Originally posted by M.:
I don't recall encountering the type of behaviour many women are discussing here, so please don't believe all women feel the same.
M.
quote:Ahh. You made a perfectly sensible point in your first paragraph and then you went and spoiled it all with some elitist misogynistic Tory drivel.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
quote:That's where, if you expect your earning capacity to increase in the future, you take the pain of working now, even though, after childcare, you don't have a lot of money left. Then when you no longer need the most expensive kind of childcare, you're still on the career ladder with the earning power to start actually paying your debts.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:You can have good or cheap - pick one.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision,
Let's look at some numbers. For under fives, you want one competent adult per 4 or 5 children. Let's say 5.
Then if you want childcare, you have to pay for 20% of a person's salary per child. But there are overheads - even if the full cost of childcare is tax-deductible, so you can pay for it out of your gross income, you still have to pay employers' NI, an allowance for replacement staff to cover vacation, maternity and sick leave, insurance premiums, heat, light and rent for the childcare facility, legal and secretarial costs, advertising and so on. A factor of 2.5 for total overheads seems to be in reasonably common use, so you're actually going to have to pay 50% of a person's salary per child in childcare.
Right there, we see that if you have two young children, and your earning potential is similar to that of the kind of person you'd like to look after your children, it makes absolutely no financial sense for you to pay for childcare. Equally, it makes no financial sense for the state to subsidize your childcare.
quote:Yes. In the early days all my wages went to childminders and private nurseries. But I would not have worked my way up to Deputy Headteacher at home. Once they were teenagers we had some fabulous holidays due to their Mum and Dad both working. They have been to places most kids (people) can only dream of. We also owned a narrowboat which we spent most weekends on - a great place for two active boys to spend their weekends. We could have done little of this if I hadn't worked when they were tiny.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
That's where, if you expect your earning capacity to increase in the future, you take the pain of working now, even though, after childcare, you don't have a lot of money left. Then when you no longer need the most expensive kind of childcare, you're still on the career ladder with the earning power to start actually paying your debts.
quote:Because that's the form of violence that affects women more than men. You don't think that men aren't also worried by the threat of violence if they are walking alone in a badly lit area at night? Or possibly indeed during the daytime as well depending what area it is?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Uh, hello? who mentioned sex crimes? A woman walking alone in a parking lot is not primarily concerned with rape. She is concerned with violence period--of any form. Really not sure why you dturned the conversation to rape.
quote:without seeing statistics it would be difficult to verify that. I would also point out that whilst women tend to be less obnoxious then men, women are also capable of being obnoxious.
As for my first point, I'm afraid you missed it again. I am saying that men who behave obnoxiously will do so MORE OFTEN in MORE SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES to women than they will to men.
quote:If we're talking about general rudeness I'm afraid that can be found anywhere for either men or women. If we're talking about obscene harassment or violence then, whilst that is a serious problem for women (as well as for men) it is clearly not true to say that is happening to most women 'all the time'
You seem to think that bad behavior to men in the pub balances bad behavior to women in the shopping mall. It does not. The same men who treat other men badly in the pub are also treating the women in the pub badly. Get it? The decent men get the shaft maybe half the time--at the pub, but not in the shopping mall. The women get it ALL the time. Because no matter where we go, we are "fair game."
quote:Please explain why you think my second paragraph is elitist or misogynist or Tory? It is none of those things.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Ahh. You made a perfectly sensible point in your first paragraph and then you went and spoiled it all with some elitist misogynistic Tory drivel.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
quote:Men 'as a gender' don't form anything. How do men form 'the patriarchy'?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:By men being powerful I meant men as a gender forming the patriarchy, not individual men being in power.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
About (white) men being "rich and powerful" - most aren't, most never were. But back when (in USA) job ads were segregated by men only or women only (or occasionally both) and I wanted a "management trainee" type of job, the people in charge of hiring - all of them men but not rich or powerful by any measure except being in charge of hiring - explained to me they won't hire a woman because "she'll get married and quit the job."
The ideal is a new worker who will stick around for many years, the worse case is the worker you throw a lot of training into and just when they are finally useful they quit, you've wasted all that investment.
In an era when wives (of a certain economic class) were socially pressured to stay home even if they didn't have children, hiring a woman seemed a waste of corporate resources. The low level hiring guy would have to explain to his boss, who would have to report to his rich and powerful big boss - why the unusual hire was good for the company. For the little guy the risk of damaging his own career by bucking the social system was too big.
quote:Talking of statistics, have you formulated your response to the one I quoted some time ago - 'Women perform 66 % of the world's work, produce 50% of the food, but earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property'. (UN Women)?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
without seeing statistics it would be difficult to verify that.
quote:By society being structured to benefit men and disadvantage women.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:Men 'as a gender' don't form anything. How do men form 'the patriarchy'?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:By men being powerful I meant men as a gender forming the patriarchy, not individual men being in power.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
About (white) men being "rich and powerful" - most aren't, most never were. But back when (in USA) job ads were segregated by men only or women only (or occasionally both) and I wanted a "management trainee" type of job, the people in charge of hiring - all of them men but not rich or powerful by any measure except being in charge of hiring - explained to me they won't hire a woman because "she'll get married and quit the job."
The ideal is a new worker who will stick around for many years, the worse case is the worker you throw a lot of training into and just when they are finally useful they quit, you've wasted all that investment.
In an era when wives (of a certain economic class) were socially pressured to stay home even if they didn't have children, hiring a woman seemed a waste of corporate resources. The low level hiring guy would have to explain to his boss, who would have to report to his rich and powerful big boss - why the unusual hire was good for the company. For the little guy the risk of damaging his own career by bucking the social system was too big.
quote:The same is true for fathers. I don't think any of us can have it all.
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I am at risk of making many an enemy with this post... but here goes: women who think they are entitled to a great career while having children at the same time have got it wrong. Their children will invariably pay the price. One cannot "have it all".
quote:Jade, this post was unhelpful, because Anglican't was talking society/generalities, and you also used the word 'generally', as if you were saying that career is objectively superior to child-rearing. I get now from your clarification that you were talking personal experience and opinion, but I think all of us have to be careful not to knock others with what seem to be sweeping comments. When I first read your post, I found it very disparaging of parents (of either gender) who enjoy spending time with their kids.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
quote:A good, balanced point well made.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I hate the idea of people having to 'choose' between their kids and their work, and I think it's inaccurate. I personally don't see how any parent could choose work over their kids. I mean, I love my job, but love for my own child dwarfs that to insignificance. However, of course, that doesn't mean that parents shouldn't work and shouldn't also gain meaning and joy from a career; that career is also what is helping them provide for their children.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)quote:There's no conservative as conservative as one who doesn't even notice they are.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Please explain why you think my second paragraph is elitist or misogynist or Tory? It is none of those things.
quote:So you don't actually have any logical arguments to say that what I said was elitist or misogynist or Tory (and no saying 'the women posting here agree with me' does not count as evidence. Anyone who thinks what I said is elitist or misogynist or Tory is just plain wrong).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:There's no conservative as conservative as one who doesn't even notice they are.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Please explain why you think my second paragraph is elitist or misogynist or Tory? It is none of those things.
Anyway, just look at the reaction the women posting here have to what you are saying. Really.
quote:is elitist or misogynist or Tory?
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
quote:Society is structured to benefit its wealthy ruling class, both male and female. It is not structured to benefit anyone else, male or female. The fact that richest people are more likely to be male does not mean societies structures are set up to advantage males outside the ruling class. Neither does it mean that it does not benefit women inside the ruling class.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:By society being structured to benefit men and disadvantage women.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Men 'as a gender' don't form anything. How do men form 'the patriarchy'?
The patriarchy's existence is entry-level feminism, you might like to Google this next time.
quote:As I said before its difficult for me to comment on this. Most societies are outside the West and have very difference social structures, economic structures and political structures from ourselves and from one another. If you gave some stats from a particular country I could have a look at that and comment. Perhaps you could give some stats from the West that might help the discussion.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Talking of statistics, have you formulated your response to the one I quoted some time ago - 'Women perform 66 % of the world's work, produce 50% of the food, but earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property'. (UN Women)?
Originally posted by Tommy1:
without seeing statistics it would be difficult to verify that.
Or do you find it easier to repeat variations on (essentially) Huh! Sez you!
quote:You have been disputing the reality of gender privilege: I have given you a planet-sized instance of it. It may be differently distributed - if you want to see how read the source from which I drew the quotation. The focus of the report is on the legal impediments to women's economic progress, which are lower in 'western' countries, where the problems translate to the cultural and social.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
As I said before its difficult for me to comment on this. Most societies are outside the West and have very difference social structures, economic structures and political structures from ourselves and from one another. If you gave some stats from a particular country I could have a look at that and comment. Perhaps you could give some stats from the West that might help the discussion.
quote:We don't live in a planet sized society. Different societies will have different structures so it is difficult to comment on the structures of particular societies without knowing more about them. To suggest that your stats represent a 'planet-wide' example of patriarchy suggests that there is a single 'planet-wide' patriarchy which is nonsense. The only 'planet-wide' structures that exist, such as the WTO, are devoted to helping the interests of international businesses not the interests of men in general.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:You have been disputing the reality of gender privilege: I have given you a planet-sized instance of it.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
As I said before its difficult for me to comment on this. Most societies are outside the West and have very difference social structures, economic structures and political structures from ourselves and from one another. If you gave some stats from a particular country I could have a look at that and comment. Perhaps you could give some stats from the West that might help the discussion.
quote:I have not questioned the validity of anyone's testimony.
When I or other posters speak from first hand on the lived experience of that, your response has been to reject the validity of our testimony.
quote:From the comments above, and elsewhere, it is clear that some women have indeed had it worse than others. Since data is not the plural of anecdote one would need to have data to determine conclusively whether women on average 'have it worse' than men on average when it comes to suffering from rudeness, aggression or violence.
We were untypical or unlucky or we had no worse than anyone else.
quote:Statistical representation would certainly help in a way that anecdotes cannot.
I see no reason to assume that you would give any more credence to some statistical representation.
quote:I disagree. This thing I'm typing on was made in China. This cardigan I'm wearing in Cambodia. Never mind No man is an island - no country is. Geography is no armour against globalisation.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
We don't live in a planet sized society.
quote:I wouldn't argue that different societies around the world are increasingly interconnected by international trade and communications. I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't take an interest in the welfare of people in other parts of the world. The humanitarian impulse has been a part of globalisation ever since Cortes and the Spanish put a stop to human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:I disagree. This thing I'm typing on was made in China. This cardigan I'm wearing in Cambodia. Never mind No man is an island - no country is. Geography is no armour against globalisation.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
We don't live in a planet sized society.
Why should I feel unconnected to the lives of women in other countries? I do not take my own rights for granted. And the best protection is to try and extend them as widely as possible.
quote:That's not the same as Jade Constable's definition of 'The Patriarchy' which was 'men as a gender being in a position of power'.
Originally posted by Firenze:
'The patriarchy' I have always understood ... as a shorthand way of describing an institutionalised form of misogyny.
quote:If only more people could be like him
Tommy1: The humanitarian impulse has been a part of globalisation ever since Cortes and the Spanish put a stop to human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire.
quote:Semantics, dear boy, semantics.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:That's not the same as Jade Constable's definition of 'The Patriarchy' which was 'men as a gender being in a position of power'.
Originally posted by Firenze:
'The patriarchy' I have always understood ... as a shorthand way of describing an institutionalised form of misogyny.
quote:Married Women's Property Act. Votes for Women. Equal Pay Act. Marital rape declared illegal.
To go with your definition what evidence is there that western countries are governed with 'an institutionalised misogyny'?
quote:Any evidence that employers are trying to 'effectively evade the law' based on misogyny?
Originally posted by Firenze:
To change effective evasions of the law and to change attitudes, that is the next thing.
quote:Women are also less represented in the prison population. Is that institutional misandry or is it simply the result of men tending, on average, to be more likely to commit crimes. There are any number of reasons why people fail to get top jobs or great wealth. If women are less likely to, for example, become multi millionaires it could be for any number of reasons. For example making different choices in life or having lower levels of aggression on average. I can't see any evidence that women are prevented from getting top jobs or great wealth that they would otherwise get because of institutionalised misogyny
number of female Cabinet Ministers or CEOs or Vice Chancellors or multi millionaires or whatever - and tell me, do you yet see an equality of women?
quote:Can you not? Then I can assist you no further.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I can't see any evidence that women are prevented from getting top jobs or great wealth that they would otherwise get because of institutionalised misogyny
quote:You need to look for the information. Try a search on "why are women under represented in top jobs", or "men and women income gap". There are other worthy searches, and lots of good info.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I can't see any evidence that women are prevented from getting top jobs or great wealth that they would otherwise get because of institutionalised misogyny
quote:Well that's a great 'emperor's new clothes' argument isn't it. You claim that Western societies are dominated by institutional misogyny. If someone agrees with you that confirms your theory. If someone doesn't agree with you then that demonstrates that they also are misogynist, thereby confirming your theory. No other evidence needed.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Can you not? Then I can assist you no further.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I can't see any evidence that women are prevented from getting top jobs or great wealth that they would otherwise get because of institutionalised misogyny
You can be part of the solution or part of the problem: your choice.
quote:So the process of selection is based on criteria in which men on average advance more than women, on average. By your reckoning that's exactly the same thing as misogyny. The fact is that most prisoners are men. Does that mean that the criminal justice system is institutionally misandrist? Of course not. In order for it to be biased against women the system would need to select in favour of men even when women show exactly the same 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' attitude as men. No one here has presented evidence that this is the case.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:You need to look for the information. Try a search on "why are women under represented in top jobs", or "men and women income gap". There are other worthy searches, and lots of good info.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I can't see any evidence that women are prevented from getting top jobs or great wealth that they would otherwise get because of institutionalised misogyny
One of the things that comes up repeatedly is that advancement in companies is fully based on competition, confidence and winner takes all, more of less like a horse race or tournament. Is this the best way to determine who is most qualified? The info says that men express more overconfidence than women. Which means that it is not about ability, it is about the ways advancement occurs by a dog-eat-dog winner takes all process, which is biased against women.
quote:No. I was responding to one post at a time.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Tommy1: did you ignore my post before you responded? It was there when you wrote your last one.
quote:Nope. Because that comparison is based on an assumption that 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' is actually the correct basis for selection.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
In order for it to be biased against women the system would need to select in favour of men even when women show exactly the same 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' attitude as men. No one here has presented evidence that this is the case.
quote:Well, companies as a whole are in direct competition for customers - for example, every customer who buys a Mercedes is one who didn't buy a Ford and every customer who has buys an Apple iPad is one who didn't buy a Samsung Galaxy. If any company decides that it doesn't have to be actively competing against its rivals, then it will very quickly lose market share to the point where it goes out of business. "Competition, confidence and winner takes all" is a pretty good description of the overall business market.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. Because that comparison is based on an assumption that 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' is actually the correct basis for selection.
quote:Many of those men are in prison for violence against women, so that slightly puts a wrench in your logic. The high proportion of men in the prison population is partly a result of women being victimized by men - often their spouse or relatives.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Women are also less represented in the prison population. Is that institutional misandry or is it simply the result of men tending, on average, to be more likely to commit crimes.
quote:Can we not also look at the fact that most of the people inside for drug dealing, burglary and so on are men as another example of institutionalized patriarchy. The man is going to work (only in this case his "work" is crime), and the little woman is left at home.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Many of those men are in prison for violence against women, so that slightly puts a wrench in your logic.
quote:I would say that it probably is. Why isn't that company being prosecuted under various anti-discrimination legislation?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Tommy1. Would you say that not giving equal pay for exactly the same job was institutional misogyny or not?
quote:They are They are.
Originally posted by deano:
The laws are on the statute books (in the UK), so why are they not being used?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:They are They are.
Originally posted by deano:
The laws are on the statute books (in the UK), so why are they not being used?
quote:A more important prison statistic is that a woman is more likely to get a custodial sentence than a man for the same - or a lesser - offence. And yes, that's institutional misogyny. Women commit less crime but get punished more severely.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Women are also less represented in the prison population. Is that institutional misandry or is it simply the result of men tending, on average, to be more likely to commit crimes.
quote:And in the country where I live, a women is more likely to get a longer custodial sentence than a man for the same - or a lesser - offence. Also institutional misogyny.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
A more important prison statistic is that a woman is more likely to get a custodial sentence than a man for the same - or a lesser - offence. And yes, that's institutional misogyny. Women commit less crime but get punished more severely.
quote:I think you missed my point. The Saudi criminal justice system imprisons far more men than women and yet the suggestion that Saudi justice is biased against men is utterly absurd. The higher rate of imprisonment of men therefore has other causes than discrimination against men.
Originally posted by Louise:
By Tommy1's reasoning, since only 6.6% of the prison population in Saudi Arabia is female - that clearly proves there isn't a problem with institutional sexual discrimination against women in Saudi.
Also since most men who have done hateful things to women in Saudi haven't bothered to go on the record and explicitly state that they hate women, misogyny's clearly not much of a problem in Saudi either. It's a miracle!
quote:Would be interested in seeing the stats for that
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:A more important prison statistic is that a woman is more likely to get a custodial sentence than a man for the same - or a lesser - offence. And yes, that's institutional misogyny. Women commit less crime but get punished more severely.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Women are also less represented in the prison population. Is that institutional misandry or is it simply the result of men tending, on average, to be more likely to commit crimes.
quote:None of that alters my point. Judges are gaoling more men than women, police are arresting more men. Neither of these facts prove that judges or police are biased against men.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Many of those men are in prison for violence against women, so that slightly puts a wrench in your logic. The high proportion of men in the prison population is partly a result of women being victimized by men - often their spouse or relatives.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Women are also less represented in the prison population. Is that institutional misandry or is it simply the result of men tending, on average, to be more likely to commit crimes.
Crimes like rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence are in the vast majority committed by men against women and/or children.
So it's not just that men commit more crime, but that women are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
quote:This wasn't a case of women being paid less than men for the same jobs was it? It was a case of so called 'equivalent' jobs, i.e. jobs with a mostly male workforce paying more than jobs with a mostly female workforce. However the idea that employers pay a penny higher than the market rate for their workers unless they are compelled to is absurd. If refuse collectors were being paid more that school cooks, for example, it was simply because the market rate for their work was higher. Nothing to do with misogyny.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:They are They are.
Originally posted by deano:
The laws are on the statute books (in the UK), so why are they not being used?
quote:Exactly
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, companies as a whole are in direct competition for customers - for example, every customer who buys a Mercedes is one who didn't buy a Ford and every customer who has buys an Apple iPad is one who didn't buy a Samsung Galaxy. If any company decides that it doesn't have to be actively competing against its rivals, then it will very quickly lose market share to the point where it goes out of business. "Competition, confidence and winner takes all" is a pretty good description of the overall business market.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. Because that comparison is based on an assumption that 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' is actually the correct basis for selection.
That being the case, the need for companies to have competitive and confident leaders can be demonstrated.
None of which says anything about which set of genitalia said leaders should have, of course. There are many women who do have that drive, and there are many men who do not.
quote:That's because there's often, you know, evidence. If a woman turns up battered, she lives at home with her boyfriend, and she says her boyfriend beat her, it would be fairly silly for the police to then interrogate her grandmother and sister just to show gender equality.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
None of that alters my point. Judges are gaoling more men than women, police are arresting more men. Neither of these facts prove that judges or police are biased against men.
quote:Two things:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That men tend to be more violent is a physical difference between the genders, not an indication of some sort of natural competitive superiority that can be translated seamlessly to non-physical activities - like, say, being an MP.
quote:The law disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If refuse collectors were being paid more that school cooks, for example, it was simply because the market rate for their work was higher. Nothing to do with misogyny.
quote:There are obviously physical differences between men and women. Men are on average larger and stronger. That's just a fact.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Two things:
(1) You seem to be conceding the point that there are differences between the genders that mean men are more suited to certain roles than women (in this case, the role of being a violent thug). If such differences exist, then surely it is possible for one gender to be better suited to certain tasks than the other, and thus to be disproportionally involved in carrying out those tasks without prejudice being involved. Would you agree?
quote:I was responding to Tommy's point that men are more aggressive which is why they are more successful.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
(2) The "natural competitive superiority" to which you refer was something that was brought up by those on the feminist side of this argument to explain why men will generally do better than women in selection processes that are based on 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' even if both genders are treated perfectly equally throughout such processes. In fact, their argument was not that men do not have a natural advantage in such conditions, but that the conditions themselves should be changed in order to negate their natural advantage - and that is a very different argument.
quote:I know it does, your point being?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:The law disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If refuse collectors were being paid more that school cooks, for example, it was simply because the market rate for their work was higher. Nothing to do with misogyny.
quote:Exactly! Men are imprisoned at a higher rate for reasons other than bias against men.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:That's because there's often, you know, evidence.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
None of that alters my point. Judges are gaoling more men than women, police are arresting more men. Neither of these facts prove that judges or police are biased against men.
quote:Firstly because there is a difference between the average for men or women and what an individual man or woman can do. For example men being more aggressive than women on average does not mean that all men are more aggressive than all women, far from it. Secondly an increase in the number of women in the higher ranks of the workforce is the result of society, government and business encouraging more women to join the workforce.
Since you seem to think men are naturally more suited to such roles, then why are there now more female CEOs in sectors not traditionally dominated by women - like Marisa Mayer at Yahoo! or Mary Barra at General Motors? Or in government like the new Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen?
Either women are becoming more like men (suggesting that there is no natural advantage, as you claim), or society is becoming less biased against women - suggesting that a bias DID and HAS existed.
quote:That you're wrong? I'm sure it does happen occasionally. You may even, on very rare instances, accept that you're wrong and go away and reconsider your previous position.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I know it does, your point being?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:The law disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
If refuse collectors were being paid more that school cooks, for example, it was simply because the market rate for their work was higher. Nothing to do with misogyny.
quote:Employers and other citizens are obliged to obey the law. That does not mean they are obliged to agree with the reasoning behind every law. I think that the reasoning behind this particular law is faulty. Do you agree with the reasons behind every law on the statute book? I don't think many people would.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:That you're wrong? I'm sure it does happen occasionally. You may even, on very rare instances, accept that you're wrong and go away and reconsider your previous position.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:I know it does, your point being?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The law disagrees with you.
quote:You'd think so, but there is a lot of evidence that that isn't really true. Some jobs seem to have lower or higher wages just because of tradition or habit. So at the top of the pile - or perhaps rather 90% of the way up - there will be at least some workers who would have been willing to work for less than they actually get (and that is no reason to pay them less in my view, people ought to be well paid).
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the idea that employers pay a penny higher than the market rate for their workers unless they are compelled to is absurd.
.
quote:Not true in my experience. My experience is that little has changed. And the reasons haven't changed either.
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have, in one generation, moved from 'no mother should work' to 'all mothers should work' - both extremes are, of course, not desirable outcomes. I'd like to see a situation where people can choose according to what suits their own unique family situation and, as long as at least one parent is working, not be penalised at all for that choice. The biggest problem now is high rents and mortgages which do seem to assume that there are two wage earners in the family.
quote:You explained that well.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You'd think so, but there is a lot of evidence that that isn't really true.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the idea that employers pay a penny higher than the market rate for their workers unless they are compelled to is absurd.
.
...So no, we can't assume wages are set at the minimum required to attract workers. In real life they often aren't.
quote:Indeed, working-class women have always had to work. The myth of the golden age where all women were stay at home mothers, and it's only down to wicked wicked feminism that this has changed, is just that - a myth. The two world wars were indeed game-changers in terms of middle-class women working, but didn't make much difference to working-class women - they just changed the kind of jobs that were done.
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
quote:Not true in my experience. My experience is that little has changed. And the reasons haven't changed either.
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have, in one generation, moved from 'no mother should work' to 'all mothers should work' - both extremes are, of course, not desirable outcomes. I'd like to see a situation where people can choose according to what suits their own unique family situation and, as long as at least one parent is working, not be penalised at all for that choice. The biggest problem now is high rents and mortgages which do seem to assume that there are two wage earners in the family.
Mothers who didn't go out to work were few and far between when I was a lad in Lancashire in the 1950's, 60's and early 70's.
The company directors' wives quite likely didn't go out to work, but below that level, it was pretty unusual for women not to go out to work. All my friends' mothers went out to work.
By the way, the idea that rents and mortgages are set on the basis of there being two wage earners in a family is ludicrous. The price is set by people being willing to paying. You can put your house on the market at any price, but the price it goes for is the price somebody will pay. It would be stupid to put it on the market for half what you might get for it, because all that will happen is that somebody with a lot of money in the bank will buy it off you and immediately sell it at an enormous profit, ending up with even more money in the bank.
quote:Concerning your point about the salaries of people at the top I would agree absolutely which is why I referred to the pay of workers. Top management are technically employees but as you say many function as de facto employers rather than employees or workers.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You'd think so, but there is a lot of evidence that that isn't really true. Some jobs seem to have lower or higher wages just because of tradition or habit. So at the top of the pile - or perhaps rather 90% of the way up - there will be at least some workers who would have been willing to work for less than they actually get (and that is no reason to pay them less in my view, people ought to be well paid).
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the idea that employers pay a penny higher than the market rate for their workers unless they are compelled to is absurd.
And at the very top of the pile workers to some extent determine their own wages - or rather these days board members and CEOs and bonus-rich bankers sit on "compensation committees" to decide what other members of their class should be paid and so they talk each others wages up in a sort of mutual admiration society.
And at the bottom of the pile there are at least some wages that are traditionally set lower than would be best for the employers. I know that seems absurd, and I didn't use to believe it but it happens to be true, at least in a few odd circumstances. We did a huge one-off experiment to prove it when we introduced the minimum wage. At the time I, like a lot of people, assumed that the very lowest paying employers would be driven out of business by minimum wages because they presumably paid what the market would bear. It turned out not to be true.
Part of the reason was that some low-paying jobs had a "going rate" that was not in fact enough to attract workers. But the employers didn't have the imagination, or the guts, to pay more. When they were forced to pay the still pathetically low minimum wage they found it easier to recruit and keep workers and actually did better.
Another part of the reason was that the very lowest wages of all tended to be for agricultural work in isolated communities where there is little or no real competition between employers, and where the low-paid have no real opportunity to commute elsewhere to work. In these cases workers were choosing between inadequate wages or no wages and often preferred no wages - many of them being married women whose husbands just about earned enough to keep them and possibly had children at home. Paying more attracted more of them out of the home into work. (And also attracted workers from Eastern Europe to do jobs that still didn't pay enough even after the minimum wage). Another unexpected result was that slightly higher wages in such communities produced more business opportunities because more money was spent by e people who lived there. Not much more money but such rural economies are often pretty marginal anyway.
So no, we can't assume wages are set at the minimum required to attract workers. In real life they often aren't.
quote:A very important point. Working class women have always worked, middle class women have not. Does that perhaps say something about the desirability of work? The huge expansion of the middle class would have meant a huge expansion of the number of women who didn't have to work. That wouldn't do, as many women as possible had to be encouraged to join the workforce. That is the main reason why feminism has been allowed to flourish.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indeed, working-class women have always had to work. The myth of the golden age where all women were stay at home mothers, and it's only down to wicked wicked feminism that this has changed, is just that - a myth. The two world wars were indeed game-changers in terms of middle-class women working, but didn't make much difference to working-class women - they just changed the kind of jobs that were done.
quote:Again, feminism hasn't been 'allowed' to do anything, it has happened because women have made it happen and not because men have 'allowed' it. And also again, feminism and capitalism are antithetical to each other.
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:A very important point. Working class women have always worked, middle class women have not. Does that perhaps say something about the desirability of work? The huge expansion of the middle class would have meant a huge expansion of the number of women who didn't have to work. That wouldn't do, as many women as possible had to be encouraged to join the workforce. That is the main reason why feminism has been allowed to flourish.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indeed, working-class women have always had to work. The myth of the golden age where all women were stay at home mothers, and it's only down to wicked wicked feminism that this has changed, is just that - a myth. The two world wars were indeed game-changers in terms of middle-class women working, but didn't make much difference to working-class women - they just changed the kind of jobs that were done.
quote:You weren't talking about physical differences, though. You said men are more violent, which is a mental attribute rather than a physical one.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are obviously physical differences between men and women. Men are on average larger and stronger. That's just a fact.
We're talking about white collar positions of power and not working in a mine, so physical gender differences are irrelevant. A small, physically weak man can often achieve greatness in the corporate world. Look at Bill Gates.
quote:I'm intrigued to hear what things you think women excel at that men do not. Especially in light of the suggestion in your previous paragraph that there aren't any non-physical differences that affect the workplace.
I was responding to Tommy's point that men are more aggressive which is why they are more successful.
The feminist argument was that aggression = success is itself a result of patriarchy. Success could easily be measured in the things women tend to excel at. That it's not, is due to men controlling society.
quote:How do you define "actual performance" in this context?
The conditions should be changed to measure actual performance.
quote:It makes perfect sense if the skills that lead to success in business - especially in the higher echelons thereof - are not the same as those that lead to success in the classroom.
If you consider that women outperform men in school and university acceptances (at least in the US), then it doesn't make much sense that in the workplace all of a sudden women are less talented than men.
quote:Quite. And in a universe where most families have a single wage earner, people's ability to pay, and hence the market value of a house, is driven by prevailing interest rates and a single wage.
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
By the way, the idea that rents and mortgages are set on the basis of there being two wage earners in a family is ludicrous. The price is set by people being willing to paying.
quote:This assumes that good performance at school uses the same skills as good performance in employment, no? It seems that these days we are constantly bombarded by complaints that school does not prepare people for employment, so I'm not sure that I should automatically assume that the better-performing students will make better employees.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you consider that women outperform men in school and university acceptances (at least in the US), then it doesn't make much sense that in the workplace all of a sudden women are less talented than men. There's a mid-point and that's what we need to find and strive to work towards.
quote:There is still a problem, though, in crossing from 'the company needs to behave this way' to 'all people IN the company need to behave this way'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, companies as a whole are in direct competition for customers - for example, every customer who buys a Mercedes is one who didn't buy a Ford and every customer who has buys an Apple iPad is one who didn't buy a Samsung Galaxy. If any company decides that it doesn't have to be actively competing against its rivals, then it will very quickly lose market share to the point where it goes out of business. "Competition, confidence and winner takes all" is a pretty good description of the overall business market.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. Because that comparison is based on an assumption that 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' is actually the correct basis for selection.
That being the case, the need for companies to have competitive and confident leaders can be demonstrated.
None of which says anything about which set of genitalia said leaders should have, of course. There are many women who do have that drive, and there are many men who do not.
quote:Perhaps a better term would be "aggressive." I've never heard Bill Gates described as "violent" but there is no doubt that he is unusually aggressive.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You weren't talking about physical differences, though. You said men are more violent, which is a mental attribute rather than a physical one.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are obviously physical differences between men and women. Men are on average larger and stronger. That's just a fact.
We're talking about white collar positions of power and not working in a mine, so physical gender differences are irrelevant. A small, physically weak man can often achieve greatness in the corporate world. Look at Bill Gates.
quote:Similarly, you're going to have to define what "success" means here-- and define it in a way that isn't circular. If "success" = "making a lot of money", then you've just used the question to define the answer. It's going to be hard to not get caught in a chicken-and-egg argument-- are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How do you define "actual performance" in this context?
The conditions should be changed to measure actual performance.
quote:It makes perfect sense if the skills that lead to success in business - especially in the higher echelons thereof - are not the same as those that lead to success in the classroom.
If you consider that women outperform men in school and university acceptances (at least in the US), then it doesn't make much sense that in the workplace all of a sudden women are less talented than men.
Is that the case? My experience of employment in both the private and public sectors would suggest that it is.
quote:Aggression and violence are linked to testosterone, which is higher in men. That is a physical difference.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You weren't talking about physical differences, though. You said men are more violent, which is a mental attribute rather than a physical one.
quote:I didn't. I said the leaders need to behave that way.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is still a problem, though, in crossing from 'the company needs to behave this way' to 'all people IN the company need to behave this way'.
quote:No. Their organisations need to. A person can surely make his organisation be competitive without himself being personally competitive, in the sense of competing against his colleagues?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I didn't. I said the leaders need to behave that way.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is still a problem, though, in crossing from 'the company needs to behave this way' to 'all people IN the company need to behave this way'.
quote:Success for a business ultimately means getting a higher share of the market than anyone else. You may have a small independent coffee shop that returns a respectable profit, but Starbucks/Costa are still the market leaders and therefore the most successful coffee shop companies.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, you're going to have to define what "success" means here-- and define it in a way that isn't circular. If "success" = "making a lot of money", then you've just used the question to define the answer. It's going to be hard to not get caught in a chicken-and-egg argument-- are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
quote:Hmm. Even in the profit-focused world, they usually compare profit to expenditure. Starbucks isn't necessarily more successful than that little shop if Starbucks generated 200 times more profit but spent 500 times more getting it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Success for a business ultimately means getting a higher share of the market than anyone else. You may have a small independent coffee shop that returns a respectable profit, but Starbucks/Costa are still the market leaders and therefore the most successful coffee shop companies.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, you're going to have to define what "success" means here-- and define it in a way that isn't circular. If "success" = "making a lot of money", then you've just used the question to define the answer. It's going to be hard to not get caught in a chicken-and-egg argument-- are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
Success for individual employees ultimately means getting promoted to the top jobs at the top companies.
Your turn. How would you define "actual performance" in this context?
quote:An interesting approach.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Aggression and violence are linked to testosterone, which is higher in men. That is a physical difference.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You weren't talking about physical differences, though. You said men are more violent, which is a mental attribute rather than a physical one.
Scientific American
If behavior linked to testosterone is considered "successful" in society, it is inherently discriminatory against women and men with low levels of the hormone.
quote:That's the question, isn't it. Are the traits that would make someone an effective leader for a competitive company also the ones that will make them effective in competition for the leadership job in the first place?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A person can surely make his organisation be competitive without himself being personally competitive, in the sense of competing against his colleagues?
quote:If a smaller profit as a percentage of turnover equates to a bigger profit in terms of dollars/pounds, then it equates to a bigger dividend for the shareholders. £10 expenditure for £20 income is a 100% profit and £10m expenditure for £12m income is only 20% profit, but most shareholders would rather have £2m divided between them than £10.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. Even in the profit-focused world, they usually compare profit to expenditure. Starbucks isn't necessarily more successful than that little shop if Starbucks generated 200 times more profit but spent 500 times more getting it.
quote:If it takes 20 years to regrow a forest, then the company needs to have the logging rights to 20 forests. It can then clear one forest per year, and make a lot of money every year. That's why high market share is so important.
Meanwhile, big 'successful' forestry companies will make a lot of money from a forest... once. After they've clearfelled it, there isn't going to be another chance to make money from that forest for decades, because there won't be any forest to cut down.
quote:Or to put it another way - "do successful business leaders need to be psychopaths?", or indeed "does current recruitment practice for top business leaders ensure a high proportion of them are psychopaths."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's the question, isn't it. Are the traits that would make someone an effective leader for a competitive company also the ones that will make them effective in competition for the leadership job in the first place?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A person can surely make his organisation be competitive without himself being personally competitive, in the sense of competing against his colleagues?
quote:Ummm, some men are larger and stronger than some women. Biological reductionism is a) inherently anti-feminist and b) very unfair on trans and gender-neutral/genderqueer people. The whole argument of there being significant biological differences between men and women (despite 'men' and 'women' being ideas that are constructed anyway) is very cissexist.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:There are obviously physical differences between men and women. Men are on average larger and stronger. That's just a fact.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Two things:
(1) You seem to be conceding the point that there are differences between the genders that mean men are more suited to certain roles than women (in this case, the role of being a violent thug). If such differences exist, then surely it is possible for one gender to be better suited to certain tasks than the other, and thus to be disproportionally involved in carrying out those tasks without prejudice being involved. Would you agree?
We're talking about white collar positions of power and not working in a mine, so physical gender differences are irrelevant. A small, physically weak man can often achieve greatness in the corporate world. Look at Bill Gates.
quote:I was responding to Tommy's point that men are more aggressive which is why they are more successful.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
(2) The "natural competitive superiority" to which you refer was something that was brought up by those on the feminist side of this argument to explain why men will generally do better than women in selection processes that are based on 'competition, confidence and winner takes all' even if both genders are treated perfectly equally throughout such processes. In fact, their argument was not that men do not have a natural advantage in such conditions, but that the conditions themselves should be changed in order to negate their natural advantage - and that is a very different argument.
The feminist argument was that aggression = success is itself a result of patriarchy. Success could easily be measured in the things women tend to excel at. That it's not, is due to men controlling society.
The conditions should be changed to measure actual performance. If you consider that women outperform men in school and university acceptances (at least in the US), then it doesn't make much sense that in the workplace all of a sudden women are less talented than men. There's a mid-point and that's what we need to find and strive to work towards.
quote:That's not the same thing at all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Or to put it another way - "do successful business leaders need to be psychopaths?", or indeed "does current recruitment practice for top business leaders ensure a high proportion of them are psychopaths."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the question, isn't it. Are the traits that would make someone an effective leader for a competitive company also the ones that will make them effective in competition for the leadership job in the first place?
quote:A better illustration would be that of a football team manager - the captain is more analagous to a middle-management team leader sort of role.
The illustration I'd use is that of a football captain (which is unlike me as I have no interest in 22 men kicking a ball about) - you want the team to be competitive - of course - but do you want as captain the sort of person who wants to score the goals himself and get all the glory? I suspect not.
quote:I'm not so sure about that. The more one doesn't give a shit about anyone else, the more one is able to do whatever it takes to climb the greasy pole ahead of them - i.e psychopathy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's not the same thing at all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Or to put it another way - "do successful business leaders need to be psychopaths?", or indeed "does current recruitment practice for top business leaders ensure a high proportion of them are psychopaths."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the question, isn't it. Are the traits that would make someone an effective leader for a competitive company also the ones that will make them effective in competition for the leadership job in the first place?
quote:My point was that the assumption is being made that someone who can lead a business competitively must themselves be personally competitive. I'm questioning that.
quote:A better illustration would be that of a football team manager - the captain is more analagous to a middle-management team leader sort of role.
The illustration I'd use is that of a football captain (which is unlike me as I have no interest in 22 men kicking a ball about) - you want the team to be competitive - of course - but do you want as captain the sort of person who wants to score the goals himself and get all the glory? I suspect not.
quote:I've been promoted a few times, and been through application/interview processes a few more. I've never felt particularly like I didn't give a shit about anyone else interviewing for those jobs, but invariably they were a competitive process where the person with the most confidence and will to succeed would get the one job on offer - winner takes all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not so sure about that. The more one doesn't give a shit about anyone else, the more one is able to do whatever it takes to climb the greasy pole ahead of them - i.e psychopathy.
quote:They certainly don't have to be constantly competitive in all aspects of their life, no - in a team setting the competitive instincts of the team members (and leaders) must be focused outwards rather than towards each other. But that competitive instinct must still be present, and in the business setting a competitive interview process is one of the best ways to evaluate that.
My point was that the assumption is being made that someone who can lead a business competitively must themselves be personally competitive. I'm questioning that.
quote:Which is precisely the sort of circular chicken-or-egg definition I was talking about. It's fairly simple to figure out what % of men vs. women are "promoted to the top jobs". It will be much harder, though, to determine if those promotions are based on actual ability, accomplishment and/or hard work, or whether they are based on societal institutional sexism, whether overt of subconscious-- or some combination thereof.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Success for a business ultimately means getting a higher share of the market than anyone else. You may have a small independent coffee shop that returns a respectable profit, but Starbucks/Costa are still the market leaders and therefore the most successful coffee shop companies.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, you're going to have to define what "success" means here-- and define it in a way that isn't circular. If "success" = "making a lot of money", then you've just used the question to define the answer. It's going to be hard to not get caught in a chicken-and-egg argument-- are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
Success for individual employees ultimately means getting promoted to the top jobs at the top companies.
quote:Ideally, one's job description will be written in specific enough language to allow some metrics to that, which will of course vary according to the job. But you're still apt to end up with at least some degree of the circular chicken-or-egg thing, as our performance in most/many jobs is often dependent upon other coworkers, customers, or clients, each operating with their own set of assumptions and expectations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Your turn. How would you define "actual performance" in this context?
quote:They don't require psychopathy if there are no psychopaths competing. If there are psychopaths competing then the psychopaths outcompete the non-psychopaths on those criteria.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Competition, confidence and winner takes all. The three aspects of the "male" approach that were being mentioned when I joined the discussion. None of them require psychopathy.
quote:No it's not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which is precisely the sort of circular chicken-or-egg definition I was talking about.
quote:That's all about how people become successful, not what success is in the first place.
It's fairly simple to figure out what % of men vs. women are "promoted to the top jobs". It will be much harder, though, to determine if those promotions are based on actual ability, accomplishment and/or hard work, or whether they are based on societal institutional sexism, whether overt of subconscious-- or some combination thereof.
quote:Performance in one job isn't really a useful metric of how well someone will perform in another - such as if they are in line for promotion from team member to team leader. The two roles require a completely different set of skills.
quote:Ideally, one's job description will be written in specific enough language to allow some metrics to that, which will of course vary according to the job. But you're still apt to end up with at least some degree of the circular chicken-or-egg thing, as our performance in most/many jobs is often dependent upon other coworkers, customers, or clients, each operating with their own set of assumptions and expectations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Your turn. How would you define "actual performance" in this context?
quote:If so then that just means they're better at fulfilling the criteria, doesn't it? Or is it OK to arbitrarily change the criteria for a job to stop "the wrong sort of people" getting it?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:They don't require psychopathy if there are no psychopaths competing. If there are psychopaths competing then the psychopaths outcompete the non-psychopaths on those criteria.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Competition, confidence and winner takes all. The three aspects of the "male" approach that were being mentioned when I joined the discussion. None of them require psychopathy.
quote:There are certain downsides of hiring a psychopath. Shortage of long-term strategic thinking, for instance. Failure to weigh risks in comparison to immediate rewards.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If so then that just means they're better at fulfilling the criteria, doesn't it? Or is it OK to arbitrarily change the criteria for a job to stop "the wrong sort of people" getting it?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They don't require psychopathy if there are no psychopaths competing. If there are psychopaths competing then the psychopaths outcompete the non-psychopaths on those criteria.
quote:Indeed, just yesterday I was reminiscing about one I met. Once. For one meeting. It was enough for a lifetime.
Originally posted by Garasu:
They'll cheerfully hire woman psychopaths, if that helps!
quote:It appears that you aren't arguing against the point that competitive hiring practices inherently disadvantage women. You're rather saying that whether or not they inherently disadvantage women competitive hiring practices are desirable overall. So we rather have to argue that they aren't desirable overall.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's interesting to note how the arguments against me have gone from "competitive hiring practices are bad because they inherently disadvantage women" to "competitive hiring practices mean you'll only ever hire psychopaths".
quote:Not on my part, but I would certainly say that success as an abstract noun on its own is pretty useless. Success at what? It's impossible to work out whether someone has succeeded at something unless you know what it was they were actually trying to achieve.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It feels like you're trying to work up to some sort of "there's no such thing as individual success" conclusion. Or possibly "everyone is successful in their own way". Am I right?
quote:I agree. But that was YOUR definition. I'm merely pointing out why YOUR definition, the one YOU offered, is circular.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:No it's not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which is precisely the sort of circular chicken-or-egg definition I was talking about.
quote:That's all about how people become successful, not what success is in the first place.
It's fairly simple to figure out what % of men vs. women are "promoted to the top jobs". It will be much harder, though, to determine if those promotions are based on actual ability, accomplishment and/or hard work, or whether they are based on societal institutional sexism, whether overt of subconscious-- or some combination thereof.
quote:Uh, no. Not at all. You seem to be missing the point entirely.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It feels like you're trying to work up to some sort of "there's no such thing as individual success" conclusion. Or possibly "everyone is successful in their own way". Am I right?
quote:The implicit acceptance that if competitive hiring practices are desirable overall then it doesn't matter if they discriminate against women is noted.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It appears that you aren't arguing against the point that competitive hiring practices inherently disadvantage women. You're rather saying that whether or not they inherently disadvantage women competitive hiring practices are desirable overall. So we rather have to argue that they aren't desirable overall.
quote:It's possible you misunderstood me. I defined personal success in the business context as having the top job, and corporate success as having the largest share of the market. (Naturally, the people who are most able to lead the company to corporate success will be those who achieve personal success)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. But that was YOUR definition. I'm merely pointing out why YOUR definition, the one YOU offered, is circular.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's all about how people become successful, not what success is in the first place.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's fairly simple to figure out what % of men vs. women are "promoted to the top jobs". It will be much harder, though, to determine if those promotions are based on actual ability, accomplishment and/or hard work, or whether they are based on societal institutional sexism, whether overt of subconscious-- or some combination thereof.
quote:Fair enough.
quote:Uh, no. Not at all. You seem to be missing the point entirely.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It feels like you're trying to work up to some sort of "there's no such thing as individual success" conclusion. Or possibly "everyone is successful in their own way". Am I right?
quote:I'm still unclear on what your definition is. The one you initially offered or seemed to offer is apparently a "misunderstanding" you want to distance yourself from with an extended metaphor which seems to only illustrate the circular nature of the original definition.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's possible you misunderstood me. I defined personal success in the business context as having the top job, and corporate success as having the largest share of the market. (Naturally, the people who are most able to lead the company to corporate success will be those who achieve personal success)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. But that was YOUR definition. I'm merely pointing out why YOUR definition, the one YOU offered, is circular.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's all about how people become successful, not what success is in the first place.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's fairly simple to figure out what % of men vs. women are "promoted to the top jobs". It will be much harder, though, to determine if those promotions are based on actual ability, accomplishment and/or hard work, or whether they are based on societal institutional sexism, whether overt of subconscious-- or some combination thereof.
As in so many areas of life, some achieve success by honest hard work or natural talent, some by cheating or lying, and others by exploiting institutional prejudice or systemic flaws. But what success actually is remains the same.
Think of a race, where success means crossing the line first. And if someone suggested redefining success in the race by using different criteria in order to give me a better chance against him that would be ridiculous.
...So what is success in the business context? Define that, and you have your "race". Only then can you start looking at which means of "crossing the line first" are fair and which aren't.
I have offered my definition. I'd be interested to see what other definitions people may offer.
.
quote:And yes, phrased that way it's circular. But (assuming you substitute "in the top jobs" for "higher salaries") that's not what I'm saying - I agree with the first part but not the second.
are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
quote:And what I'm saying is that that conclusion is not as self-evident with gaining the top jobs as it is with a foot race. The essence of the discussion is such that it is not apparent why or thru what path those in the "top jobs" get there. They may, in fact, get those jobs because either consciously or subconsciously they conform in some physical way (race, gender, age, beauty, even height) to someone's mental image of what a "successful" person is. Or it may be that conscious or subconscious sorting may happen further down the line-- in the multitude of prior educational and employment opportunities that open the doors to that top job.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You've claimed that "success means winning the race" is circular. I cannot understand how that can possibly be true. Perhaps instead of just saying "I've already answered that" you could try rephrasing the objection in such a way that I might be able to understand what you mean and where you're coming from.
Wait, a possible light dawns. I've just re-read an earlier post of yours, where you said
quote:And yes, phrased that way it's circular. But (assuming you substitute "in the top jobs" for "higher salaries") that's not what I'm saying - I agree with the first part but not the second.
are men more "successful" because they are given higher salaries-- or do they get higher salaries because they are more "successful"?
To elaborate, I am saying that success means being in the top jobs, but I am not saying that the people in the top jobs are there because they are successful. Without the second clause, the reasoning is not circular.
Similarly, the most successful person in a race is the one who crosses the line first - but they do not cross the line first because they are the most successful person in the race! It's because they were better at running than anyone else that they gained that success. Again, it is not circular reasoning.
quote:We're accepting that for the sake of argument, yes. If you think it just doesn't matter whether hiring practices discriminate against women we're not going to get you to care by arguing the point directly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The implicit acceptance that if competitive hiring practices are desirable overall then it doesn't matter if they discriminate against women is noted.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It appears that you aren't arguing against the point that competitive hiring practices inherently disadvantage women. You're rather saying that whether or not they inherently disadvantage women competitive hiring practices are desirable overall. So we rather have to argue that they aren't desirable overall.
quote:Ok - definition of personal success at work:
I defined personal success in the business context as having the top job, and corporate success as having the largest share of the market. (Naturally, the people who are most able to lead the company to corporate success will be those who achieve personal success)
As in so many areas of life, some achieve success by honest hard work or natural talent, some by cheating or lying, and others by exploiting institutional prejudice or systemic flaws. But what success actually is remains the same.
quote:An interesting analogy. Success is clearly defined in a race, because a race is a clearly defined task. (Though even there, what about the fun-runner in the marathon who is trying to raise money for charity, or beat their personal best time?) In a race, you don't get any other competitors jumping in half-way through. You either crossed the line first or you didn't. Whereas in business it's more tricky. If a business gets more of the market share by overexpanding, and then goes bust, was it a success? There's no point at which the business crosses the line and the race is over.
Think of a race, where success means crossing the line first. Some people may do that by using drugs or jumping the gun, but such tactics don't change the fact that success still means crossing the line first.
quote:Additional layers of inanity: everyone else who works for that company has also failed to achieve success, since they didn't make it to the top job in the company. And everyone but the head cheese / dog / honcho of the company that did get the largest market share isn't a success either...
Originally posted by mousethief:
So a man who founds and builds a prosperous company, even a multi-billion-dollar, Forbes 400 company, isn't a success if there is another company in the same field with greater market share? Marvin, your definition of success is inane.
quote:I completely agree that the process of "getting to the finish line" is considerably more complicated in business than in a race. But in principle the analogy is sound.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And what I'm saying is that that conclusion is not as self-evident with gaining the top jobs as it is with a foot race. The essence of the discussion is such that it is not apparent why or thru what path those in the "top jobs" get there. They may, in fact, get those jobs because either consciously or subconsciously they conform in some physical way (race, gender, age, beauty, even height) to someone's mental image of what a "successful" person is. Or it may be that conscious or subconscious sorting may happen further down the line-- in the multitude of prior educational and employment opportunities that open the doors to that top job.
Or it may be that, in fact, the "magical free marketplace" really does work it's magic and insure that those in the "top jobs" are really those who are the "fastest"-- i.e. the "top performers" by whatever objective criteria that particular industry might be driven by. But color me skeptical.
The factors leading to someone attaining a "top job" are so much more varied and subjective than the factors leading to winning a foot race that the comparison really doesn't hold.
quote:Not as much of a success, no.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So a man who founds and builds a prosperous company, even a multi-billion-dollar, Forbes 400 company, isn't a success if there is another company in the same field with greater market share? Marvin, your definition of success is inane.
quote:It depends on why the discrimination exists. If it's because more men than women fulfil the requirements of the role then having more men than women in the role is not unfair.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think it just doesn't matter whether hiring practices discriminate against women we're not going to get you to care by arguing the point directly.
quote:I respect that definition a lot, especially as it's pretty much my own attitude to work. But I'm more of a "it doesn't matter if you win or lose so long as you have fun" kind of guy. It may even be that I enjoyed the race far more than anyone else, even though I came last. That's a kind of success.
Ok - definition of personal success at work:
Having a job that one finds interesting and that one enjoys and that makes a positive contribution to the world. Complete personal success is having a job that one would still want to do even if one didn't need the money.
quote:It was never intended as an analogy for corporate success, which as you say is a race without a finishing line.
An interesting analogy. Success is clearly defined in a race, because a race is a clearly defined task. (Though even there, what about the fun-runner in the marathon who is trying to raise money for charity, or beat their personal best time?) In a race, you don't get any other competitors jumping in half-way through. You either crossed the line first or you didn't. Whereas in business it's more tricky. If a business gets more of the market share by overexpanding, and then goes bust, was it a success? There's no point at which the business crosses the line and the race is over.
Besides, by the above criteria a business is only completely successful when it's a monopoly. But I don't think even free-market ideologues think monopolies are a good thing; they tend to argue that achieving a monopoly is impossible or unstable. In which case, complete success for a business is impossible. Whereas in a race, success, defined as crossing the finishing line, is success.
quote:So long as the requirements are reasonable - you can't just tack in some proxy for "has a penis" into the job requirements and claim your lack of sexism.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It depends on why the discrimination exists. If it's because more men than women fulfil the requirements of the role then having more men than women in the role is not unfair.
quote:Perhaps a little OT - but this caught my eye. This is not an uncommon view in business (and academia, FWIW) - but organisations which don't try to build in defenses against this are in a lot of trouble.
success in business means getting the top job in a company
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:So long as the requirements are reasonable - you can't just tack in some proxy for "has a penis" into the job requirements and claim your lack of sexism.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It depends on why the discrimination exists. If it's because more men than women fulfil the requirements of the role then having more men than women in the role is not unfair.
quote:People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
For example, "we store all our stuff on high shelves, so only want to hire people taller than 6'4" " would not be a reasonable requirement, as short people can trivially be accommodated with a step.
quote:And that's precisely the point I'm saying is not self-evident. Yes, the "needs of the job itself" should be the key factor, my contention is that all too often it is not-- that the "winner" is not the "fastest". Not just in male/female terms but in a host of other unseen and often unconscious paradigms-- wealthy/poor, beautiful/ugly, tall/short (yes! says this shortie), thin/fat.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I completely agree that the process of "getting to the finish line" is considerably more complicated in business than in a race. But in principle the analogy is sound.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And what I'm saying is that that conclusion is not as self-evident with gaining the top jobs as it is with a foot race. The essence of the discussion is such that it is not apparent why or thru what path those in the "top jobs" get there. They may, in fact, get those jobs because either consciously or subconsciously they conform in some physical way (race, gender, age, beauty, even height) to someone's mental image of what a "successful" person is. Or it may be that conscious or subconscious sorting may happen further down the line-- in the multitude of prior educational and employment opportunities that open the doors to that top job.
Or it may be that, in fact, the "magical free marketplace" really does work it's magic and insure that those in the "top jobs" are really those who are the "fastest"-- i.e. the "top performers" by whatever objective criteria that particular industry might be driven by. But color me skeptical.
The factors leading to someone attaining a "top job" are so much more varied and subjective than the factors leading to winning a foot race that the comparison really doesn't hold.
My point is, when it comes to picking someone for a job - any job - the needs of the job itself should be the key factor in the decision. And if it just so happens that women are on average better suited to a job than men then there will be a bias towards women in the recruitment statistics for that job - but that doesn't mean the hiring process is itself prejudiced against men!
quote:Actually, this illustrates precisely what I'm talking about, because it shows how subconscious our assumptions about job performance are. Because never in this scenario did anyone ask, "why IS all our stuff stored up on high shelves? Does it need to be? Is it essential to the task? Is there another option?" If we have always hired tall, non-wheelchair bound people to do this job, those questions have probably never occurred to us. There may or may not be another option that would make the job more accessible to shorties and wheelchair bound persons, but imagining it requires getting past the assumption that stuff on high shelves is the way things have to be. These sorts of assumptions/ expectations are built into virtually every job.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:So long as the requirements are reasonable - you can't just tack in some proxy for "has a penis" into the job requirements and claim your lack of sexism.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It depends on why the discrimination exists. If it's because more men than women fulfil the requirements of the role then having more men than women in the role is not unfair.
quote:People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
For example, "we store all our stuff on high shelves, so only want to hire people taller than 6'4" " would not be a reasonable requirement, as short people can trivially be accommodated with a step.
Point is, just because a job requirement results in a particular imbalance of genders/heights/(dis)abilities/etc doesn't necessarily mean it's an unfair requirement that should be removed.
quote:I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
quote:I hypothesise a general negative correlation between the interest of various tasks and the tendency of those tasks to be delegated down the ladder. As long as the nature of the job doesn't significantly differ (as from IT to management) most people are likely to find senior posts more interesting.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But it doesn't really fit the context of this thread. When people say "why aren't there more successful women in business" they aren't asking why more women don't enjoy their jobs, they're asking why there aren't more women in the top jobs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ok - definition of personal success at work:
Having a job that one finds interesting and that one enjoys and that makes a positive contribution to the world. Complete personal success is having a job that one would still want to do even if one didn't need the money.
quote:When I said, "As long as the nature of the job doesn't significantly differ (as from IT to management)," that is the sort of thing I meant.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not sure about that Dafyd - the people I know (IT, medical professions, teaching) consider the fact that losing the hands on element to a greater or lesser extent, which comes with promotion, is a downside; the job definitely doesn't become more interesting.
quote:You're still assuming that the goal is to come 'first' and that there's a single criterion for assessment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not as much of a success, no.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So a man who founds and builds a prosperous company, even a multi-billion-dollar, Forbes 400 company, isn't a success if there is another company in the same field with greater market share? Marvin, your definition of success is inane.
The silver medal is still an incredible success, it's just that gold is even better.
quote:Clear cutting and re-growing forests tends to produce inferior lumber compared to what comes out of an old-growth forest that's been harvested sustainably. That's one of the reasons why in these parts timber companies are usually seeking to cut down the remaining old growth forests. Also, despite the claims of the tree farmers, unless there's a source of new minerals being added. if you harvest and ship out the lumber, you're shipping out the minerals in the ecosystem. That will end in tears, or possibly Australia
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it takes 20 years to regrow a forest, then the company needs to have the logging rights to 20 forests. It can then clear one forest per year, and make a lot of money every year. That's why high market share is so important.
quote:I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
quote:A reasonable assumption-- but an unexamined one. There are alternatives. One might be to look at how the stock are used, it may be that there is stock that needs to be accessed far less often than that on the upper shelves, rearranging stock may make that possible. There's also all sorts of ways to store things other than the standard warehouse configuration-- look at some of the innovative ways large libraries are housing books, for example, with compressed bookcases, etc.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
quote:Yes-- important correction. Thanks!
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
/language tangent
Some people use wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility aids. These individuals are not contained or trapped in them as the phrases "in a wheelchair" and "wheelchair bound" might suggest. Thank you.
/end tangent
quote:I'm not sure the situation you describe is "most", that's all. I think it's quite common that folk find that the higher echelons are more dull.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:When I said, "As long as the nature of the job doesn't significantly differ (as from IT to management)," that is the sort of thing I meant.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not sure about that Dafyd - the people I know (IT, medical professions, teaching) consider the fact that losing the hands on element to a greater or lesser extent, which comes with promotion, is a downside; the job definitely doesn't become more interesting.
quote:Two things.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
quote:Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate forklift trucks? Maybe Ikea should fund the development of trucks that can be operated purely by hand, just in case such a person ever decides to apply for a job in one of their warehouses?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain Ikea don't suggest their staff toss those around like confetti, and don't employ Charles Atlas and his brother to do so. No, they employ 'people' and use 'fork-lift trucks'.
quote:Some changes may benefit others besides wheelchair users. For example, the accessibility legislation made my life a lot easier when my daughter was a baby, thanks to roll-on-roll-off buses, ramps and lifts that allowed access to shops for pushchairs, etc. etc.
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)?
quote:If I ever become too decrepit to sit at a desk then still being able to do my job will be the least of my worries.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And unless you are planning to commit suicide at the first signs of advancing decrepitude, someday you will be disabled yourself. At that point you may find yourself becoming reconciled to the idea of having your job redesigned to allow you to continue working.
It isn't that unlikely. There was someone at my last place of work who ended up resigning because she couldn't do her desk job.quote:Is it perhaps a consequence of the new 'Tough on Welfare Scroungers' attitude of the government that firms are having to sift through a lot of applications from people who would otherwise not bother applying for the job advertised? People of working age have to show that they are actively looking for work to qualify for benefits nowadays. This may involve applying for jobs they are unqualified for, just to fulfil the weekly or monthly quota.
Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
quote:I know - I'm asking what constitutes a 'reasonable' adjustment.
Originally posted by Jane R:
But you seem to be setting up a straw man, anyway. The legislation doesn't say employers have to take absolutely anyone; it says they should consider making 'reasonable' adjustments to the requirements of the job.
quote:I have absolutely no idea. But since we've already cracked the 'Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate cars/vans/trucks?' bit - something I presume you're not outraged about - I don't see any particular difficulty.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate forklift trucks? Maybe Ikea should fund the development of trucks that can be operated purely by hand, just in case such a person ever decides to apply for a job in one of their warehouses?
quote:You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
And what if a blind person wants to work there? How many changes and new technologies would be required to make that possible?
quote:Agreed. And it begins in school. The school makes reasonable adjustments, the children thrive. As do the rest of the class, who learn that we are all different and have different needs.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
And what if a blind person wants to work there? How many changes and new technologies would be required to make that possible?
quote:In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost - the disabled person has the biggest challenges to face, adapting a building etc is a small cost.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I know - I'm asking what constitutes a 'reasonable' adjustment.
Originally posted by Jane R:
But you seem to be setting up a straw man, anyway. The legislation doesn't say employers have to take absolutely anyone; it says they should consider making 'reasonable' adjustments to the requirements of the job.
quote:And back to the question at hand in this thread - what is the small cost of making it easier for working parents (generally mothers who carry most of the burden), compared to the cost to society of having potentially productive people giving up careers because of family obligations?
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost - the disabled person has the biggest challenges to face, adapting a building etc is a small cost.
quote:NY Times - Working (Part Time)
UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS — Remco Vermaire is ambitious and, at 37, the youngest partner in his law firm. His banker clients expect him on call constantly — except on Fridays, when he looks after his two children. Fourteen of the 33 lawyers in Mr. Vermaire’s firm work part time, as do many of their high-powered spouses. Some clients work part time, too.
“Working four days a week is now the rule rather than the exception among my friends,” said Mr. Vermaire, the first man at Wijn & Stael Advocaten to take a “daddy day” in 2006. Within a year, all the other male lawyers with small children in his firm had followed suit.
quote:That was the law here last time I was on the dole over 30 years ago.
Originally posted by Jane
People of working age have to show that they are actively looking for work to qualify for benefits nowadays.
quote:I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
quote:And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
quote:And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
quote:I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
quote:And of course, after the riots start they can just throw all the rioters in jail. Or out on the street, if said rioters are on housing benefit or in a council house.
In fact they have an interest in being harsh because visible destitution and shame suits their party line - up to the point where riots start.
quote:My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
Seriously. What's your problem?
quote:Comparisons to slavery? Really?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
quote:If they can make a truck that's safe for a blind person to drive then they can make one that doesn't need a driver at all. Which I guess would resolve the whole "equality" thing, but in the other direction.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Actually, Marvin, a blind lorry-driver in charge of a truck on automatic pilot would be far less of a danger to me than a lorry-driver with perfect 20:20 vision who is looking in the wrong direction.
quote:And my problem is that you don't think there should be any accommodation at all, which has been historically all-too-easily translated in racist, sexist, ageist, anti-disabled ways.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
quote:They say they can't afford it, but this is rarely the case. Lack of motivation is the problem, not lack of cash.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their staff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
quote:You know, the sailors in a submarine can never see where they're going either, except when on the surface (i.e. when they're not being submarines.) Those sailors drive a ship containing a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons completely blind, and yet, somehow, with the assistance of various technological devices, they sail on blindly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... I'd come up with more examples, but frankly I can't think of one more outlandish than the idea of one of these being driven at motorway speeds by someone who can't even see where they're going.
quote:You can now.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mind you, 30 years ago you could apply for travelling expenses to get to interviews. Those were the days...
quote:Since the daft idea is your strawman, why don't you let it go? No one but you is saying that every forklift has to have hand enabled controls, or that every parking space has to be large enough to handle a wheelchair van.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
I'd come up with more examples, but frankly I can't think of one more outlandish than the idea of one of these being driven at motorway speeds by someone who can't even see where they're going.
quote:Yeah, that struck me as an overreach as well. I've worked in human rights, and I don't remember any of the disability advocacy organisations going anywhere near there.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Comparisons to slavery? Really?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
quote:Other than Boogie, I don't think anyone is arguing that there may be financial limits. But that is missing the point. The point is that all too often there are very reasonable and even low or no cost solutions (e.g. rearranging stock so that the most used-items are on lower shelves; having a small private area for pumping breastmilk, etc) that CAN be made but aren't simply because we jump to the conclusion that "X" group can't do this job. Sometimes the assumption is correct-- I doubt we'll get blind lorry/truck drivers any time soon, google's attempts notwithstanding. But all too often the assumptions are incorrect. And we never find out which is the case until we get past the knee-jerk objections to ask the real questions.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
quote:Yes, really. The comparison, while extreme, is valid-- there are similar variables and disincentives at play.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Comparisons to slavery? Really?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
quote:Read the context: the analogy was a limited one in response to a complaint re: the cost of making accommodations. The analogy was hyperbolic, but the point is valid: making a paradigm shift to accommodate a new population in the workplace will be costly. While the deprivation women, parents, and persons of disabilities experience in the workplace is nothing like the horror of slavery, at the same time, the economic cost to employers of accommodating them will be nothing compared to the economic devastation caused to Southern whites by the dismantling of slavery.
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, there really aren't.
Slavery is about forcibly coercing someone to work for you. Comparing that to a situation of failing to facilitate someone working for you is just over the top.
quote:But there's no 'thing' to dismantle. Wrong analogy. Employers are not a monolithic block or institution like 'slavery'. The nearest equivalent to 'employers' would be 'slave owners'. Whereas 'slavery' is equivalent to 'employment'.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Read the context: the analogy was a limited one in response to a complaint re: the cost of making accommodations. The analogy was hyperbolic, but the point is valid: making a paradigm shift to accommodate a new population in the workplace will be costly. While the deprivation women, parents, and persons of disabilities experience in the workplace is nothing like the horror of slavery, at the same time, the economic cost to employers of accommodating them will be nothing compared to the economic devastation caused to Southern whites by the dismantling of slavery.
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, there really aren't.
Slavery is about forcibly coercing someone to work for you. Comparing that to a situation of failing to facilitate someone working for you is just over the top.
quote:Now that bit was hilarious - a lot of posturing until someone said "You can't do that" it'll cost more .....
Originally posted by Jane R:
And of course, after the riots start they can just throw all the rioters in jail. Or out on the street, if said rioters are on housing benefit or in a council house.
quote:Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And my problem is that you don't think there should be any accommodation at all, which has been historically all-too-easily translated in racist, sexist, ageist, anti-disabled ways.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
quote:Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
quote:Well, <sarcasm on> obviously it is if she refuses to sacrifice her marriage on the altar of Economic Necessity. <\sarcasm off>
She has an impeccable work record, very very low sickness level (about 6 days total in 13 years) and yet the DHSS are making her feel like a leper even though she will do anything within reason. It's not her fault that her husband's job demanded a 200 mile move and she can't commute!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for Middle Daughter. Hope she gets something suitable soon.quote:Hoo boy. I remember being ever so slightly involved in the disability standards for buildings here in Australia.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
quote:I'd argue that the benefit of attracting the widest possible pool of talent to work for you will always out-weigh the cost of adjustments to the work-place.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)? Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
quote:That doesn't sound like a cost-benefit analysis.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I'd argue that the benefit of attracting the widest possible pool of talent to work for you will always out-weigh the cost of adjustments to the work-place.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)? Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
If you've already narrowed down the talent pool you're choosing from, you could have already excluded, say, the future head of R&D who would have come up with the next revolutionary super-profitable product.
quote:I think the reality of this position also depends on the size and location of the organisation in question. For example,
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this.
quote:might be fine for a large US corporation. But for a small family-run business in India (for example), it's not quite as realistic.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
quote:When using analogy, it is not a requirement that each and every aspect of the analogy line up perfectly. That will never happen. All metaphors break down eventually. Even the analogies in Jesus' parables will break down eventually (the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, except...). This is particularly true when one is also employing hyperbole.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I don't agree with are extreme comparisons and saying "oh well, if the cost shuts down a business, tough luck". I've already said it in different ways, but a comparison with slavery strikes me as stupid because it was NEVER the goal of dismantling slavery to provide slaves with jobs. They already had jobs. Horrible, demeaning jobs. The goal was to provide them with freedom to walk away from those jobs. In which case, shutting down their 'employers' was entirely a good thing.
How is it remotely of any benefit to a person with disability if their employer shuts down? That's a lose-lose situation if ever I saw one. Conveying some kind of satisfaction with that outcome is thoughtless.
quote:The comparison is perfectly valid; it was not economically viable for the plantations to employ the same number of field workers if they had to pay them a wage. They could only make ends meet on a free labor basis. So the former slaves ended up with no work and the plantations shut down.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I don't agree with are extreme comparisons and saying "oh well, if the cost shuts down a business, tough luck".
quote:Slave owners were paid a fortune in compensation. None to the slaves of course.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In this case, the analogy has to do with the objection that providing greater access will be "too costly". A similar objection was made re: slavery-- correctly so, because dismantling slavery was enormously costly.
quote:fwiw, Reparations to slave owners was made in the UK but not in the US.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Slave owners were paid a fortune in compensation. None to the slaves of course.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In this case, the analogy has to do with the objection that providing greater access will be "too costly". A similar objection was made re: slavery-- correctly so, because dismantling slavery was enormously costly.
I reckon it's more about willingness and motivation to adapt than the ability to do so.
quote:Would things be better if that school was shut down? Somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
quote:So long as there were facilities for them in other local schools, is that really such a problem?
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
quote:According to some, the only answer is to demolish the whole building and put up a modern, fully-accessible alternative in its place.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Old buildings are a problem. Over here, we have strict rules on what alterations are allowed in historic buildings. We're trying to improve disabled access to our church at the moment, which involves knocking a hole in the churchyard wall and laying a new path through the graveyard at the back. Adding accessible toilet facilities is a distant (and expensive) dream, involving complicated negotiations with English Heritage and major surgery to the area behind the bell-tower...
quote:Are there really no options between "Close it" and "Tough Shit - go somewhere else"?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Would things be better if that school was shut down? Somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
quote:So long as there were facilities for them in other local schools, is that really such a problem?
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
quote:But that's the question, isn't it? If the reason why some people are being excluded from consideration is that they can't fulfil the requirements of the job then they're not in the talent pool to begin with.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'd argue that the benefit of attracting the widest possible pool of talent to work for you will always out-weigh the cost of adjustments to the work-place.
quote:You'd have to ask Doc - he certainly made it sound that way.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Are there really no options between "Close it" and "Tough Shit - go somewhere else"?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Would things be better if that school was shut down? Somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
quote:So long as there were facilities for them in other local schools, is that really such a problem?
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
The "other schools in the area" option doesn't really help a kid who breaks their leg and is in plaster for a few weeks.
quote:Would it be better if the building was accessible to those with physical disabilities? Yes. Yes it would.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Would things be better if that school was shut down? Somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
quote:It is if it's your local school.
So long as there were facilities for them in other local schools, is that really such a problem?
quote:Only in Marvin's weird-ass binary world.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You'd have to ask Doc - he certainly made it sound that way.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Are there really no options between "Close it" and "Tough Shit - go somewhere else"?
The "other schools in the area" option doesn't really help a kid who breaks their leg and is in plaster for a few weeks.
quote:This one broke down immediately. Again, how the blazes is it a good thing for a business to go broke trying to make changes for an employee?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When using analogy, it is not a requirement that each and every aspect of the analogy line up perfectly. That will never happen. All metaphors break down eventually.
quote:Combining this with other posts, we sound like we're in the territory of demolishing a school for a child with a temporary problem. Which would be even less sensible.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The "other schools in the area" option doesn't really help a kid who breaks their leg and is in plaster for a few weeks.
quote:But there's a difference between employers SAYING it, and it being ACTUALLY TRUE.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:The comparison is perfectly valid; it was not economically viable for the plantations to employ the same number of field workers if they had to pay them a wage. They could only make ends meet on a free labor basis. So the former slaves ended up with no work and the plantations shut down.
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I don't agree with are extreme comparisons and saying "oh well, if the cost shuts down a business, tough luck".
This is same argument given by companies that say, if I have to offer more maternity leave or disability access, I will not be profitable, and then there won't be any women or disabled people working here because we'll be out of business. That threat - that we'll just close us shop thanks to these silly liberal ideas about equality - is the SAME as what the South said about why ending slavery would be economically devastating to them. And of course, it was, but it was the necessary cost to achieving a more equal society - and undoubtedly a better one.
quote:The school which my daughter goes to (a small village school with about a hundred pupils) currently has one pupil who's a wheelchair user and one (temporarily) on crutches.
Combining this with other posts, we sound like we're in the territory of demolishing a school for a child with a temporary problem. Which would be even less sensible.
quote:I understand that. And I'm not saying for a second that there isn't a need for improvements to be made to assist children with affected mobility. I'm just saying that I don't agree with the position of some Shipmates that seems to be that the right to access must be enjoyed equally at ANY cost.
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo:quote:The school which my daughter goes to (a small village school with about a hundred pupils) currently has one pupil who's a wheelchair user and one (temporarily) on crutches.
Combining this with other posts, we sound like we're in the territory of demolishing a school for a child with a temporary problem. Which would be even less sensible.
Children do sometimes get injuries that affect their mobility. In a medium-sized school it's quite likely that you'll have at least one a year, even if the children in wheelchairs are sent to other schools in the area.
quote:I'd like to think my position is slightly more nuanced than that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I understand that. And I'm not saying for a second that there isn't a need for improvements to be made to assist children with affected mobility. I'm just saying that I don't agree with the position of some Shipmates that seems to be that the right to access must be enjoyed equally at ANY cost.
quote:Agree with all that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'd like to think my position is slightly more nuanced than that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I understand that. And I'm not saying for a second that there isn't a need for improvements to be made to assist children with affected mobility. I'm just saying that I don't agree with the position of some Shipmates that seems to be that the right to access must be enjoyed equally at ANY cost.
But the default shouldn't be "you can't work/study/visit here because you are X/Y/Z and we're simply not set up for that." The expectation should be that the public can reasonably access that particular space (and I'd argue that being in a wheelchair or pushing a pram or using a walker is common enough to be reasonable. Likewise the expectation that a man shouldn't have to enter the women's toilets to use the baby changing facilities. Hello, late 90s...).
Yes, of course there are going to be problems with retrofitting accessibility features in older buildings, open spaces and transport. I have the expectation that over a reasonable length of time (couple of decades or so), as buildings are refitted and transport replaced, accessibility is front and centre of the plans. New buildings and vehicles should already have these in mind.
A old school round my way was demolished and rebuilt in a year, the school occupying temporary accommodation close by. The new one, on the same site, is lovely. Completely accessible, and no child is going to be excluded just because they happen to have broken their leg. It not only can be done, it is being done.
