Post Reply
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View discrimination does still continue to exist
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 8:32AM #51
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

May 1, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Bodean wrote:



You're right Amcoph .. I was wrong.


 




Right.  Mind you, I didn't press you to back down just for the sake of it.


There are Conservatives--and I've met a few--who think women should be paid less "just because."  They generally think the same about black people and asians, too.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 9:40AM #52
Bodean
Posts: 9,492

May 2, 2012 -- 8:32AM, amcolph wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Bodean wrote:



You're right Amcoph .. I was wrong.


 




Right.  Mind you, I didn't press you to back down just for the sake of it.


There are Conservatives--and I've met a few--who think women should be paid less "just because."  They generally think the same about black people and asians, too.





I didn't back down ... as much as clarified.


When you think of "women" in general .. you think, babies.  But, as pointed out in several of the studies and articles, there is this small minority of women, a new breed so to speak, who are young, single, educated and career oriented, who do not fit the mold.  As I said, their probability of having a child, and thus droppping out of the workforce is small ... ie., they are just like men in this respect.


However, once they reach 30, and that biological clock starts ticking really loud .. they join the ranks of "women in general". ... and as such, give up pay for perks, flex time, provisions of no overtime, part time, etc ....

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:28AM #53
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

May 2, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


I didn't back down ... as much as clarified.


When you think of "women" in general .. you think, babies.  But, as pointed out in several of the studies and articles, there is this small minority of women, a new breed so to speak, who are young, single, educated and career oriented, who do not fit the mold.  As I said, their probability of having a child, and thus droppping out of the workforce is small ... ie., they are just like men in this respect.


However, once they reach 30, and that biological clock starts ticking really loud .. they join the ranks of "women in general". ... and as such, give up pay for perks, flex time, provisions of no overtime, part time, etc ....




Once again I'll ask you, why are these generalizations always about "executives?"


All of those bennies that "women in general" are supposed to be able to negotiate for less pay are the perogatives of the boss class, and who gives a shit about those wankers anyway?


A woman asking for such favors if she works on the line in a fish cannery, say, will just get fired--unless she wants to go down on the boss regularly--and she probably was not making as much money per hour as the guy she was working next to anyway.


I'm tired of hearing about the terrible problems of white female college graduates trying to get 'power' jobs.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:28AM #54
TENAC
Posts: 25,858

The only place this non discrimination is effective is within government because it can be legislated, effectiveness of the position or effacacy of the person doesnt matter because in the business of govt there is no competition. 


I think you can hold this up (blind non discrimination) as an example of system breakdown unless you can show govt somewho to be efficient.


Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:30AM #55
TENAC
Posts: 25,858

May 2, 2012 -- 10:28AM, amcolph wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


I didn't back down ... as much as clarified.


When you think of "women" in general .. you think, babies.  But, as pointed out in several of the studies and articles, there is this small minority of women, a new breed so to speak, who are young, single, educated and career oriented, who do not fit the mold.  As I said, their probability of having a child, and thus droppping out of the workforce is small ... ie., they are just like men in this respect.


However, once they reach 30, and that biological clock starts ticking really loud .. they join the ranks of "women in general". ... and as such, give up pay for perks, flex time, provisions of no overtime, part time, etc ....




Once again I'll ask you, why are these generalizations always about "executives?"


All of those bennies that "women in general" are supposed to be able to negotiate for less pay are the perogatives of the boss class, and who gives a shit about those wankers anyway?


A woman asking for such favors if she works on the line in a fish cannery, say, will just get fired--unless she wants to go down on the boss regularly--and she probably was not making as much money per hour as the guy she was working next to anyway.


I'm tired of hearing about the terrible problems of white female college graduates trying to get 'power' jobs.




The lower you go down on the food chain of jobs, the less discrimination you'll have.



And that is a pretty sexist statement there by Amcoph, dont you think KW?

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:37AM #56
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

May 2, 2012 -- 10:30AM, TENAC wrote:


 


The lower you go down on the food chain of jobs, the less discrimination you'll have.



Now you really are engaging in magical thinking.  And if the Conservatives get in then people who actually work for a living will be worse off in that respect--unions will be under attack and fair employment practices laws will be eliminated or not enforced.



And that is a pretty sexist statement there by Amcoph, dont you think KW?




Not a bit of it--it's completely gender neutral.  I don't give a damn about white male college graduates trying to get power jobs, either.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:57AM #57
Bodean
Posts: 9,492

May 2, 2012 -- 10:28AM, amcolph wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


I didn't back down ... as much as clarified.


When you think of "women" in general .. you think, babies.  But, as pointed out in several of the studies and articles, there is this small minority of women, a new breed so to speak, who are young, single, educated and career oriented, who do not fit the mold.  As I said, their probability of having a child, and thus droppping out of the workforce is small ... ie., they are just like men in this respect.


However, once they reach 30, and that biological clock starts ticking really loud .. they join the ranks of "women in general". ... and as such, give up pay for perks, flex time, provisions of no overtime, part time, etc ....




Once again I'll ask you, why are these generalizations always about "executives?"


All of those bennies that "women in general" are supposed to be able to negotiate for less pay are the perogatives of the boss class, and who gives a shit about those wankers anyway?


A woman asking for such favors if she works on the line in a fish cannery, say, will just get fired--unless she wants to go down on the boss regularly--and she probably was not making as much money per hour as the guy she was working next to anyway.


I'm tired of hearing about the terrible problems of white female college graduates trying to get 'power' jobs.





The "equalization" is relegated to "higher job categories", because that is the only place you will find it amcoph.  And it's not "executives" .. as few women make it that far without dropping out, but rather, is more relegated to the entry level professional and promotion to mid level management.  Hence, why after 30 yrs of age, the factor begins to kick back in.


The lower you go on the socio-economic scale, the higher the probability that the woman will get pregnant, and thus have to take time off or quit.  It is well documented in all kinds of studies that the lower classes have more kids.  The higher classes have less kids, because the women exercise responsibiity over their reproductive habits.


Like has been stated in the articles, women are risky investments [with the exception of those young educated unmarried professionals], especially in the "working" class.  Employers can't afford to have their team leader miss the meeting because jr. is sick.  Employers can't afford to invest in a person, only to have them leave because they had a baby, and thus the employer overlooks and likely loses a more "attached" candidate.


Like has been stated, the overall disparity is only 4-5% when you take into account perks, choices, experience, etc. There just is a whole lot more to this issue than feminists would admit ... it's not just a matter of discrimination against women ... though, there is some, and I oppose it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:17AM #58
nnsecu
Posts: 1,503

I have no problem with equality as long as we are talking about true equality.  Many times in my life equality means equal pay but not equal expectations. I once worked in an office as the only male anytime desks, file cabinets, or the 30ft ladder needed to be climbed to change a light all the sudden women were not equal to me in the expectations of their ability to preform the task.  When the toilet was stopped up it was not the women who had to plunge and clean up the crap water.   When cars broke down in the parking lot it was not the women who had to push them on the 100+ degree days.  All of these were somehow socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination. 



My current employer has a requirement for males to be able to lift 50lbs, yet the female requirement is only 30.  Many of the women want to complain about not getting the same pay as men do, but are quiet on demanding equality in requiring the same physical expectations.



You can not have it both ways.  Either you support equality among the genders in all shapes and forms or you believe there are differences in the genders and accept that in all shapes and forms.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:33AM #59
amcolph
Posts: 17,446

May 2, 2012 -- 11:17AM, nnsecu wrote:


I have no problem with equality as long as we are talking about true equality.  Many times in my life equality means equal pay but not equal expectations. I once worked in an office as the only male anytime desks, file cabinets, or the 30ft ladder needed to be climbed to change a light all the sudden women were not equal to me in the expectations of their ability to preform the task.  When the toilet was stopped up it was not the women who had to plunge and clean up the crap water.   When cars broke down in the parking lot it was not the women who had to push them on the 100+ degree days.  All of these were somehow socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination. 



 




Primarily an issue in "genteel" employment, which is where most of the whining comes from.  That kind of crap wouldn't be put up with in the sort of shops I've worked in and the women who worked there with me wouldn't expect it.  They would expect equal pay, however.


It's easy to see how neckties cut off the flow of blood to the brain.  I've never understood why pantyhose seem to have the same effect.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:51AM #60
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,149

May 2, 2012 -- 11:33AM, amcolph wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 11:17AM, nnsecu wrote:


I have no problem with equality as long as we are talking about true equality.  Many times in my life equality means equal pay but not equal expectations. I once worked in an office as the only male anytime desks, file cabinets, or the 30ft ladder needed to be climbed to change a light all the sudden women were not equal to me in the expectations of their ability to preform the task.  When the toilet was stopped up it was not the women who had to plunge and clean up the crap water.   When cars broke down in the parking lot it was not the women who had to push them on the 100+ degree days.  All of these were somehow socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination. 



 




Primarily an issue in "genteel" employment, which is where most of the whining comes from.  That kind of crap wouldn't be put up with in the sort of shops I've worked in and the women who worked there with me wouldn't expect it.  They would expect equal pay, however.


It's easy to see how neckties cut off the flow of blood to the brain.  I've never understood why pantyhose seem to have the same effect.




I think it depends on the place. I've worked in a brake manufacturing company, a wood import/export company, and food retail, which all required me to be able to life 50-75 lb boxes and even though I could do so and regularly refused help, the men I worked with always tried to help because I was a woman and smaller than them.


Now, I work in a NFP and it's expected that the women will let the men lift anything heavy and for no other reason than the men think they should be the ones doing so. I still regularly refuse the help, but, in my experience, men want to take on the heavy work and it's usually out of courtesy and not disrespect. While I refuse the help, I'm not one of those women that gets all pissy because a guy offers to help me.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook