You're right in that I have not spent time in Italy. For all I know women might be in a position of power - given I have no reason to believe this is not the case, I will stipulate to this fact. However, the fact that it is women who enforce fundamentally anti-woman moral strictures in no way makes the moral strictures any less anti-women.
My point was that they are both in a position of social power, and they don't see what you view as anti-women moral strictures as being either anti-women or strictures. It's a demonstration of the fact that the 'traditional' female role can have a dominant position in society, just as 'traditional' male roles are seen to in, say, Australia.
I think that generally women are biologically disadvantaged at some things (generic example time, heavy lifting), just as generally men are at others (generic example time, compromise negotiation). Neither of these things means there do not exist women stronger than most men, or men better at diplomacy than women. Thus we should not institutionalise biases towards each, but it is fair to make general assumptions that, say, a random team of women will lift less heavy things over an hour than a random team of men.
Then why are most diplomats, linguists, psychologists, marketers, and HR types men?
OHWAIT
also, you're wrong about the strength thing. Due to the aforementioned difference-within-groups-outweighing-difference-between thing, you'd have to cherry pick your teams pretty carefully to generate that effect. Your theory also fails to explain why the nightfill team I worked in for most of college was primarily made up of mums...
Yes, I know they weren't great examples, but that's why I prefaced them with 'generic'. If we can agree that there are general biological differences between men & women (often totally overstated, but some exist nonetheless), then that's my point really.
It would have been easier to simply call them 'wrong'. Two less letters than 'generic'! Its like claiming that cooking is a naturally female activity in the face of Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey. You're basically never going to find any biological differences that actually matter to employment prospects beyond really really obvious stuff like 'can't go fighting fires while up the duff', which should be viewed in no different terms to 'can't go fighting fires while living with an unstichedup hernia'.
Also, though I'm sure that most diplomats are men because of the bias of traditional institutions, I'd debate that linguistics, psychology and marketing are primarily concerned with negotiation & diplomacy, and in my experience HR types are almost exclusively women. This coming from the fact that my flatmate is in HR, the London HR recruitment pool seems to be very incestuous, I've met a ton of people she knows through it from various companies around the city, and out of 50+ people, there have been...2 men that I can remember.
Oh great, so you're going to try the old 'ignore the main drive of the argument in favour of bitching about minutiae' tack. That's a real sign of holding the rhetorical high ground there. I bow before your posting nous.
& strength thing should have really referred to absolute strength as in one very heavy thing, rather than endurance strength of lifting heavy things over a period of time.
You'd still be basically wrong, sorry. There's scads of women out there who could snap the both of us like twigs, and there'd be more if women weren't conditioned from birth to be non-physical, thus artificially widening a rather small gap.
You're right in that I have not spent time in Italy. For all I know women might be in a position of power - given I have no reason to believe this is not the case, I will stipulate to this fact. However, the fact that it is women who enforce fundamentally anti-woman moral strictures in no way makes the moral strictures any less anti-women.
My point was that they are both in a position of social power, and they don't see what you view as anti-women moral strictures as being either anti-women or strictures. It's a demonstration of the fact that the 'traditional' female role can have a dominant position in society, just as 'traditional' male roles are seen to in, say, Australia.
How many women are in the Italian parliament, sorry? Apart from that one who's an ex porn star? celebs don't count. Also, abortion is still illegal there as far as I know, IVF and contraception are massively controversial, and a rape defence lawyer there successfully argued less than a year ago that a particular woman could not have been raped because she was wearing tight jeans 'and they're too hard to take off without severely injuring an unwilling person'. Are you talking about the same Italy the rest of us know?
You'd still be basically wrong, sorry. There's scads of women out there who could snap the both of us like twigs, and there'd be more if women weren't conditioned from birth to be non-physical, thus artificially widening a rather small gap.
Serena Williams could most likely beat the crap out of me but she's still not going to beat Roger Federer in a tennis match. She's been playing tennis since she could walk.
Michelle Wie, who has basically been trained from birth to be a golfer, is never going to drive the ball as far as Tiger Woods.
If women were capable of being the best athletes in the world, they would be the best athletes in the world. They aren't capable, so they aren't.
Men only die on average earlier because they refuse to go to doctors and think that injecting steak soup into their veins makes them tough. Quit yer bitchin'.
The life expectancy gap is about the same in both developed and 3rd world. It's not because men are stubborn and hate doctors.
You'd still be basically wrong, sorry. There's scads of women out there who could snap the both of us like twigs, and there'd be more if women weren't conditioned from birth to be non-physical, thus artificially widening a rather small gap.
Serena Williams could most likely beat the crap out of me but she's still not going to beat Roger Federer in a tennis match. She's been playing tennis since she could walk.
Michelle Wie, who has basically been trained from birth to be a golfer, is never going to drive the ball as far as Tiger Woods.
If women were capable of being the best athletes in the world, they would be the best athletes in the world. They aren't capable, so they aren't.
Bollocks, you're cherrypicking examples in a culture that's still highly sexist about women and sports (you weren't around for our last titleIX thread so I will forgive you this)
Men only die on average earlier because they refuse to go to doctors and think that injecting steak soup into their veins makes them tough. Quit yer bitchin'.
The life expectancy gap is about the same in both developed and 3rd world. It's not because men are stubborn and hate doctors.
Bollocks, you're ignoring mortality causes and how they differ wildly in the two regions. Men live less in western countries because they aren't encouraged to take care of themselves and wind up with horrible heart diseases and ass cancer. Also, the western medical establishment has a long history of overmedicalising women on the basis that they're basically fucked-up versions of men, which actually screws men over because far fewer people are researching their problems. There's no pink ribbon for prostate cancer, and the effects of male depression are only starting to gain publicity thanks to stuff like Movember.
Meanwhile, men in poor countries die young from being beaten, stabbed, shot, macheted, blowed up, worked to death in mines, etc etc. They don't even get a chance at ass-cancer.
Woman and Men have different strengths in different areas, that said the physical gaps isn't huge, there are almost no physical barriers in terms of gender or employment these days. Any disparity between men and woman in terms of employment is pretty much always caused by cultural prejudices.
Woman and Men have different strengths in different areas, that said the physical gaps isn't huge, there are almost no physical barriers in terms of gender or employment these days. Any disparity between men and woman in terms of employment is pretty much always caused by cultural prejudices.
The "There's always a women who can kick your ass" principle.
It's actually illegal in this country to consider sex in hiring. That's one potential solution, laid whole at your doorstep for inspection. What do you think?
I think it's totally possible to legislate against what employers are thinking when they make employment decisions, and I think it's totally possible to prosecute them according to that law. The law stops them asking specific questions, no more, no less. Generally, you don't need to ask if someone is female.
For most of Western Europe the difference between male and female life expectancies is less than 5 years.
In much of Africa and the war-torn Middle East the gap is even smaller - 2-4 years. I suppose everyone is hard done by when they live in a war/famine zone.
In Eastern Europe/Russia the gap is very large - 10-13 years.
As Cat says, you really have to look at causes of death to get a better idea of why these differences in life expectancy occur.
Anyway, even with that all said and done, there is NOTHING that says you have to be part of the statistics. If you lead a healthy lifestyle and aren't drafted for a war there is nothing to stop you living just as long, if not longer, than your wife.
How many women are in the Italian parliament, sorry? Apart from that one who's an ex porn star? celebs don't count. Also, abortion is still illegal there as far as I know, IVF and contraception are massively controversial, and a rape defence lawyer there successfully argued less than a year ago that a particular woman could not have been raped because she was wearing tight jeans 'and they're too hard to take off without severely injuring an unwilling person'. Are you talking about the same Italy the rest of us know?
Social power != political power.
Abortion is legal in Italy and has been since 1978, as even the briefest of Google searches will tell you. Contraception is 'controversial' in all Catholic countries, yet it is widely available and used. I'm not even going to bother with your use of a specific, individual legal case to try and suggest a general social trend.
Have you lived in the same Italy that I have, because it doesn't sound like you 'know' Italy at all.
It would have been easier to simply call them 'wrong'. Two less letters than 'generic'! Its like claiming that cooking is a naturally female activity in the face of Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey. You're basically never going to find any biological differences that actually matter to employment prospects beyond really really obvious stuff like 'can't go fighting fires while up the duff', which should be viewed in no different terms to 'can't go fighting fires while living with an unstichedup hernia'.
Well having come from a career where biological differences really do matter, beg to disagree. We can talk degrees of importance if you like, but examples do exist.
Oh great, so you're going to try the old 'ignore the main drive of the argument in favour of bitching about minutiae' tack. That's a real sign of holding the rhetorical high ground there. I bow before your posting nous.
Fine, main drive: are you stating that biological differences between men and women never matter? Because that seems something of a reversal of what you were agreeing with earlier.
You'd still be basically wrong, sorry. There's scads of women out there who could snap the both of us like twigs, and there'd be more if women weren't conditioned from birth to be non-physical, thus artificially widening a rather small gap.
Which I already mentioned a page ago. However, there are scads more men who could snap the both of us like twigs, and I doubt that majority would change if women were conditioned equally to men. In general, men have more of a natural proclivity towards building muscle; this isn't social engineering, it's biology.
Like I outlined and you seemed to agree with, there exist general trends and specific examples; it isn't unfair to make general assumptions, but it is unfair to program for (or against) them, because that would deny the specific examples which break the general rule.
It's actually illegal in this country to consider sex in hiring. That's one potential solution, laid whole at your doorstep for inspection. What do you think?
I think it's totally possible to legislate against what employers are thinking when they make employment decisions, and I think it's totally possible to prosecute them according to that law. The law stops them asking specific questions, no more, no less. Generally, you don't need to ask if someone is female.
It's possible to sue employers under the Civil Rights Act as a rejected female applicant if they hire an unusually low proportion of female applicants, or if they hired a male candidate who was demonstrably less qualified (except, evidently, using the won't-get-pregnant test). Once they're sued, they have to hand over any and all documents relating to their hiring practices both specific to this case and in general in the process of discovery.
The standard of proof is actually quite low, though not as low as it is for racial discrimination.
As far as the practical benefits of this form of regulation, women have done significantly better in the workplace since these regulations were enacted. Whether or not that is entirely the result of the law or of larger social pressures is a much more difficult question, but I think it would be silly to argue that the law had no effect on the behavior of employers. The scheme seems to be working.
For most of Western Europe the difference between male and female life expectancies is less than 5 years.
In much of Africa and the war-torn Middle East the gap is even smaller - 2-4 years. I suppose everyone is hard done by when they live in a war/famine zone.
In Eastern Europe/Russia the gap is very large - 10-13 years.
As Cat says, you really have to look at causes of death to get a better idea of why these differences in life expectancy occur.
Anyway, even with that all said and done, there is NOTHING that says you have to be part of the statistics. If you lead a healthy lifestyle and aren't drafted for a war there is nothing to stop you living just as long, if not longer, than your wife.
It cites a lot of reasons. Healthcare being one of them.
Some notable excerpts:
Even with the sizable risk conferred by childbirth, women have outsurvived men at least since the 1500s.
The gender gap is most pronounced in those who live 100 years or more. Among centenarians worldwide, women outnumber males nine to one.
The male hormone testosterone not only increases aggressive and competitive behavior in young men, it increases levels of harmful cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein), raising a male's chances of getting heart disease or stroke.
It's possible to sue employers under the Civil Rights Act as a rejected female applicant if they hire an unusually low proportion of female applicants, or if they hired a male candidate who was demonstrably less qualified (except, evidently, using the won't-get-pregnant test).
That is an extraordinarily bad idea, because there is no legal compulsion to have an equal workforce, only to offer equal opportunity. And hiring is such a massively subjective area that I would love to see how the prosecution argued that even a 'demonstrably less qualified' male candidate shouldn't be selected based on a hundred other qualities, such as the employer's judgement that their personality would fit better in the workplace.
I'm not saying that prejudice doesn't exist here, I'm saying it is impossible to prove, and attempts to do or strong-arm proof are damaging both to the legal system and to the principle of equality (see also: affirmative action, and it's enduring popularity amongst left-wing ideologists and absolutely nobody else).
Once they're sued, they have to hand over any and all documents relating to their hiring practices both specific to this case and in general in the process of discovery.
The standard of proof is actually quite low, though not as low as it is for racial discrimination.
Indeed. Any cases so far? Any successful ones? Also, I would be interested to see how many documents they could find before this legislation which stated in writing: she's female, black mark. You would have to go back pretty fucking far into the 20th century.
As far as the practical benefits of this form of regulation, women have done significantly better in the workplace since these regulations were enacted. Whether or not that is entirely the result of the law or of larger social pressures is a much more difficult question, but I think it would be silly to argue that the law had no effect on the behavior of employers. The scheme seems to be working.
Confluence is not causation, as you almost acknowledge.. The scheme does not seem to be working unless you can offer some proof that the law is responsible for changes in attitude rather than other factors.
It's well-intentioned, but as a law it's a bad principle, bad precedent, and I'm guessing utterly impossible to prosecute.
There are many factors keeping women away from top spots. First of all, the pool of women willing to work nearly their entire life at 40-50 hours/week or more is significantly smaller. Many top positions are landed through simply being selected as the hardest worker. "Old boys" networks are anything but insignificant in decisions too though, they exist, and they are powerful. Networking makes the world go round, at those levels.
The norwegian law requiring 40% of boards of large companies to be women had a really interesting effect: All companies hired from the same small pool of women, landing each women with up to dozens of commissions. This can be seen as there not being enough viable candidates, or as protecting the interest of the existing group by limiting the amount of newcomers. It's probably a mixture of both.
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
In the Netherlands, women are lagging behind in amount of hours worked compared to the scandavian countries, mostly because the lower classes, immigrants and rural areas are very conservative value wise (stay at home moms), and even the higher educated often start working part-time when they have children. This causes this subject to appear in the news at regular intervals, and making it clear to me, that solutions are not simple. You can't really force people to work that have no desire too on short term, if they don't need it financially.
Confluence is not causation, as you almost acknowledge.. The scheme does not seem to be working unless you can offer some proof that the law is responsible for changes in attitude rather than other factors.
It's well-intentioned, but as a law it's a bad principle, bad precedent, and I'm guessing utterly impossible to prosecute.
Most laws are well-intentioned. Most laws are bad laws. The law arguably changes attitudes but in many instances it might be for the worse and have the exact opposite intended effect.
Confluence is not causation, as you almost acknowledge.. The scheme does not seem to be working unless you can offer some proof that the law is responsible for changes in attitude rather than other factors.
It's well-intentioned, but as a law it's a bad principle, bad precedent, and I'm guessing utterly impossible to prosecute.
Most laws are well-intentioned. Most laws are bad laws. The law arguably changes attitudes but in many instances it might be for the worse and have the exact opposite intended effect.
Well, ignoring that specific law for the moment, there have been a number of succesful cases in the UK by women using anti-discrimination laws against their employers. Why are these bad laws? What is the negative consequence of not allowing employers to discriminate against employees?
Oh- and intellectual property rights. Are you against those? They clearly aren't an inherent right, so government should keep its nose out, yeah?
It's possible to sue employers under the Civil Rights Act as a rejected female applicant if they hire an unusually low proportion of female applicants, or if they hired a male candidate who was demonstrably less qualified (except, evidently, using the won't-get-pregnant test).
That is an extraordinarily bad idea, because there is no legal compulsion to have an equal workforce, only to offer equal opportunity. And hiring is such a massively subjective area that I would love to see how the prosecution argued that even a 'demonstrably less qualified' male candidate shouldn't be selected based on a hundred other qualities, such as the employer's judgement that their personality would fit better in the workplace.
I'm not saying that prejudice doesn't exist here, I'm saying it is impossible to prove, and attempts to do or strong-arm proof are damaging both to the legal system and to the principle of equality (see also: affirmative action, and it's enduring popularity amongst left-wing ideologists and absolutely nobody else).
It turns out that it's often quite easy to prove. HR people will send each other emails and such - there's often a paper trail.
Once they're sued, they have to hand over any and all documents relating to their hiring practices both specific to this case and in general in the process of discovery.
The standard of proof is actually quite low, though not as low as it is for racial discrimination.
Indeed. Any cases so far? Any successful ones? Also, I would be interested to see how many documents they could find before this legislation which stated in writing: she's female, black mark. You would have to go back pretty fucking far into the 20th century.
While it's more common to see sexual harassment suits under Title VII, racial discrimination suits and sex discrimination suits are prosecuted.
As far as the practical benefits of this form of regulation, women have done significantly better in the workplace since these regulations were enacted. Whether or not that is entirely the result of the law or of larger social pressures is a much more difficult question, but I think it would be silly to argue that the law had no effect on the behavior of employers. The scheme seems to be working.
Confluence is not causation, as you almost acknowledge.. The scheme does not seem to be working unless you can offer some proof that the law is responsible for changes in attitude rather than other factors.
It's well-intentioned, but as a law it's a bad principle, bad precedent, and I'm guessing utterly impossible to prosecute.
Post hoc propter hoc, yeah yeah yeah. However, it seems to be working in that lawsuits are being filed, if you take that as a measure of success.
And still none of that says that you WILL die earlier than your wife.
Yes, men are at an increased risk of heart attacks and stroke. However, like Cat says, if they bothered to go to the doctor they could easily be identified as high risk and make lifestyle changes accordingly. My grandfather (dad's dad) has already had two heart attacks; since dropping some weight and following the guidelines that his doctor has given him, however, he's been a lot better. My dad, following the second heart attack, went to the doctor himself to get assessed. He's since learned how to adjust his diet in order to lower his cholesterol levels. He could have continued in blissful ignorance as many people do; now, though, there's no reason he should die at an earlier-than-expected age; he gets regular check-ups and keeps an eye on that cholesterol.
And that there are more women alive at age 100 than men isn't a surprise when men are likely to die earlier; and it still says nothing about the causes of death.
As Cat says, women's health issues are promoted a lot more over men's. Women are more aware of their dietary habits in their youth than men as they know how important it is to eat well and stay fit during pregnancy. The media also makes us more aware of the female body shape in general. A great deal of men get away with bad dietary habits in their late teens and early 20s with little ill effect and so fall into bad habits. Women are also hyper-aware of going through the menopause and of the risks of contracting diseases like osteoporosis and so again are more careful with their dietary habits. Women also go for more regular check-ups, smear tests etc.
Well, I can't really argue with anecdotal evidence, but then you can't really claim it's representative, so I guess we're done.
Also...
Well isn't it a good thing that I provided some facts that were contrary to what Cat was asserting about Italy then! You know, the bits you left out from that post.
Well, ignoring that specific law for the moment, there have been a number of succesful cases in the UK by women using anti-discrimination laws against their employers. Why are these bad laws? What is the negative consequence of not allowing employers to discriminate against employees?
Well I for one was talking about that specific law. The succesful cases in the US have been from women usint anti-discrimination laws for unfair dismissal. Since that relies a record of behaviour in the workplace rather than a subjective judgement of a hirer, it is much easier to prove.
Not bad laws. Bad law. Don't conflate what I was saying with what KevinNash was saying.
Oh- and intellectual property rights. Are you against those? They clearly aren't an inherent right, so government should keep its nose out, yeah?
I suspect this is a bait, but if it isn't, you can do look in the Jon Colbert thread where I wrote about just that issue. Since I'm thinking you've already seen that, thus the question, I'm not sure why you are asking me again.
It turns out that it's often quite easy to prove. HR people will send each other emails and such - there's often a paper trail.
Are you going to start giving me the examples I asked for, or just continue to claim evidence without any, you know, evidence. It's also becoming increasingly clear that you are just talking about sex discrimination in general.
While it's more common to see sexual harassment suits under Title VII, racial discrimination suits and sex discrimination suits are prosecuted.
No no. Not "racial discrimination suits and sex discrimination suits". Show me cases specifically relating to what you were discussing re: that law & hiring practices please. I suspect successful examples don't exist.
Post hoc propter hoc, yeah yeah yeah. However, it seems to be working in that lawsuits are being filed, if you take that as a measure of success.
23,247 charges of sex-based discrimination seems like a pretty sizable impact to me.
No, I don't take filed lawsuits as a measure of success. I take successful lawsuits as a measure of success. And that doesn't even demonstrate impact, ecause you haven't shown a single one of those cases is about hiring practices, which is the cocking subject we were discussing.
Honestly, what is your point here? Sex discrimination happens, there have been lawsuits against sex discrimination? No shit. That isn't really what we were talking about though, is it? We were talking specifics of whether it is possible to effectively prosecute employers for what goes on in their head when they are hiring potential employees. Not how they treat actual employees. Not whether they beat their wives. Stick to the subject.
I ask you about snow in Luxembourg and you tell me, "well Europe is nice in summer!" :roll:
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
Gah gah gah gah gah!
This argument annoys me more then any other. Yes there are physical differences between men and women. This has almost nothing to do with suitability for employment in a general case, and definitely nothing to do with it when it comes to white-collar positions.
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
Gah gah gah gah gah!
This argument annoys me more then any other. Yes there are physical differences between men and women. This has almost nothing to do with suitability for employment in a general case, and definitely nothing to do with it when it comes to white-collar positions.
Moreover, no feminist is arguing that women be given 50% of every job in the first place.
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
Gah gah gah gah gah!
This argument annoys me more then any other. Yes there are physical differences between men and women. This has almost nothing to do with suitability for employment in a general case, and definitely nothing to do with it when it comes to white-collar positions.
Moreover, no feminist is arguing that women be given 50% of every job in the first place.
40% of the top positions in norway though, by law. Also note that I say physical AND social causes. Women very often choose different paths in life, including career path, excluding themselves from a lot of jobs. I saw a graph of positions at my university, which showed a sharp cut off around age 25-30 for women vs men in positions that lead up to professorship. The article below it complained that women were discriminated against for those spots, but I was not convinced that was the whole point. It was also the point where academic careers turn into 60h/week jobs in order to advance. I belief these decisions weigh heavily, especially (and I know this is anecdotal) because all of my academically trained female friends, bar one, want to have children, and work part-time only when they get to that stage.
I'm not actually opposed to the 40% law simply because women in high positions is not currently accepted enough for me to be genuinely believe it's a non-issue in promotion decisions.
Of course, you might not even be able to read well enough to be making these posts without the money we took from those other people for your education.
Actually, I was homeschooled so the best part of my education was not paid for by other people. :P
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
Gah gah gah gah gah!
This argument annoys me more then any other. Yes there are physical differences between men and women. This has almost nothing to do with suitability for employment in a general case, and definitely nothing to do with it when it comes to white-collar positions.
Moreover, no feminist is arguing that women be given 50% of every job in the first place.
40% of the top positions in norway though, by law. Also note that I say physical AND social causes. Women very often choose different paths in life, including career path, excluding themselves from a lot of jobs. I saw a graph of positions at my university, which showed a sharp cut off around age 25-30 for women vs men in positions that lead up to professorship. The article below it complained that women were discriminated against for those spots, but I was not convinced that was the whole point. It was also the point where academic careers turn into 60h/week jobs in order to advance. I belief these decisions weigh heavily, especially (and I know this is anecdotal) because all of my academically trained female friends, bar one, want to have children, and work part-time only when they get to that stage.
So because women are expected to both work and take the most care of children they're... not fit to work 60 hour weeks and raise a child?
Norway seems to be not only a special case, but a special case that everyone is skeptical of. Most feminists simply want ridiculous and artificial barriers removed. If that means that most women still can't break into Chippendale's, no one is going to be upset.
Of course, you might not even be able to read well enough to be making these posts without the money we took from those other people for your education.
Actually, I was homeschooled so the best part of my education was not paid for by other people. :P
I went to private school myself.
Hi-5 difficult to discuss socioeconomic matters with self-referencing examples buddy!
40% of the top positions in norway though, by law. Also note that I say physical AND social causes. Women very often choose different paths in life, including career path, excluding themselves from a lot of jobs. I saw a graph of positions at my university, which showed a sharp cut off around age 25-30 for women vs men in positions that lead up to professorship. The article below it complained that women were discriminated against for those spots, but I was not convinced that was the whole point. It was also the point where academic careers turn into 60h/week jobs in order to advance. I belief these decisions weigh heavily, especially (and I know this is anecdotal) because all of my academically trained female friends, bar one, want to have children, and work part-time only when they get to that stage.
Did you know that having children improves a man's career possibilities?
Perhaps the issue there is the fact that the women seem to think they have to be the ones taking care of the child most of the time.
I'm going to go ahead and say I lack the maturity to let anything but this happen. But I also don't have children. Honestly I'm thinking of donating sperm at this point and then saying "haha nature".
Most notably, she received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1983, credited by the Nobel Foundation for discovering "mobile genetic elements", over thirty years after she initially described the phenomenon of controlling elements.
Notable here is that she's the only woman to be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize in that category. Now, there are some important facts to consider: She never married, she never had children, she spent 12 hours a day at the lab, six days a week. She never retired, she kept on with her research until she died at age 90.
Over one-third of women scientists and engineers are unmarried, compared to 17% of men. Ten percent of married women scientists and engineers have an unemployed spouse compared to 40% of men. In a survey conducted by the Amercian Chemical Society, 21% of female chemists identified balancing family and work as their greatest career obstacle, compared to 2.8% of men. These differences may help to explain a very worrisome trend. In my own field of life sciences women now constitute 50% of the bachelor’s degrees awarded and are closing in on 50% of the Ph.D.s. Yet when my department and those at comparable universities advertise an assistant professorship, the applicant pool is composed of only 25% women.
The tenth woman ever to receive a Nobel prize, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, never had children. In 2004 she started a foundation to give grants to female scientists to pay for babysitting and general household assistance.
I am often asked why there is discrimination against women in science. And I have given it some thought. With prejudicial attitudes, you can't really do much. You can point out when people discriminate and ask them not to. At the Max Planck Institute, we made a little pamphlet telling the men when they do it, because they often don't know.
In German science, we have a special problem. We lose talented women at the time they get pregnant. Some of it occurs because they are encouraged — by their husbands, bosses and the government — to take long maternity leaves.
Germanic thinking has it that children can only be properly brought up if the actual mother is cleaning and picking up. Many stop their research for two or three years. Later, these young women find it difficult to get back. They drop out.
If you look at Nobel prize winners, you'll find scientists with an incredibly focused dedication for their field of interest, often dedicating their entire life to it.
There are many similarities with autism here. A study by Simon Baron-Cohen showed that the parents/grandparents of children with autism were twice as likely to be engineers as any other career. Autism is also four times as common in men as in women.
The point isn't that they're not fit to do so, or aren't chosen to do so, but that they, for a large part, choose not do to so. Yes, there are discriminatory factors in place, I acknowledge that. But I find it hard to belief that it's the overarching cause. The cause lies largely in both societies and personal views (which mix to become nearly indistinguishable at many times) about parenthood and associated suitable and preferable careers. The fact that it's the woman that stays at home or reduces working hours is due to social pressure, but also I also belief there is a difference in psychology between the two causing this.
Maybe as an academic I live in a rosecolored world regarding employement, but I really hear few tales of people not landing jobs due to gender. Maybe I'm not old enough yet (Mid twenties) for it to kick in.
Well isn't it a good thing that I provided some facts that were contrary to what Cat was asserting about Italy then! You know, the bits you left out from that post.
Yeah, pretty much failed at reading there. Although since your facts also apply to the USA I don't see how it shows much about Italian housewives and their empowerment, but I give because its not that intresting a point to me.
All the rest was directed at Kevinnash, although I was unclear about that so way to go me yet again. Although I haven't read the Colbert thread so I have no idea what your views on the matter are.
The point isn't that they're not fit to do so, or aren't chosen to do so, but that they, for a large part, choose not do to so. Yes, there are discriminatory factors in place, I acknowledge that. But I find it hard to belief that it's the overarching cause. The cause lies largely in both societies and personal views (which mix to become nearly indistinguishable at many times) about parenthood and associated suitable and preferable careers. The fact that it's the woman that stays at home or reduces working hours is due to social pressure, but also I also belief there is a difference in psychology between the two causing this.
Maybe as an academic I live in a rosecolored world regarding employement, but I really hear few tales of people not landing jobs due to gender. Maybe I'm not old enough yet (Mid twenties) for it to kick in.
It's great that you believe there must be a psychological difference, but until there's actually research revealing a significant difference, wouldn't it make more sense to believe that maybe those seemingly small discriminatory factors could have wide-ranging consequences?
Yeah, pretty much failed at reading there. Although since your facts also apply to the USA I don't see how it shows much about Italian housewives and their empowerment, but I give because its not that intresting a point to me.
All the rest was directed at Kevinnash, although I was unclear about that so way to go me yet again. Although I haven't read the Colbert thread so I have no idea what your views on the matter are.
Fair enough, Colbert thread just a weird coincidence then.
Like I said to the other guy, you can't really argue with anecdotal evidence, but this isn't involving specific people, it's the character of an entire country. But it's more or less impossible for me to convey it beyond the word 'matriarchy' without you actually having experienced the place.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Posts
My point was that they are both in a position of social power, and they don't see what you view as anti-women moral strictures as being either anti-women or strictures. It's a demonstration of the fact that the 'traditional' female role can have a dominant position in society, just as 'traditional' male roles are seen to in, say, Australia.
It would have been easier to simply call them 'wrong'. Two less letters than 'generic'! Its like claiming that cooking is a naturally female activity in the face of Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey. You're basically never going to find any biological differences that actually matter to employment prospects beyond really really obvious stuff like 'can't go fighting fires while up the duff', which should be viewed in no different terms to 'can't go fighting fires while living with an unstichedup hernia'.
Oh great, so you're going to try the old 'ignore the main drive of the argument in favour of bitching about minutiae' tack. That's a real sign of holding the rhetorical high ground there. I bow before your posting nous.
You'd still be basically wrong, sorry. There's scads of women out there who could snap the both of us like twigs, and there'd be more if women weren't conditioned from birth to be non-physical, thus artificially widening a rather small gap.
Serena Williams could most likely beat the crap out of me but she's still not going to beat Roger Federer in a tennis match. She's been playing tennis since she could walk.
Michelle Wie, who has basically been trained from birth to be a golfer, is never going to drive the ball as far as Tiger Woods.
If women were capable of being the best athletes in the world, they would be the best athletes in the world. They aren't capable, so they aren't.
The life expectancy gap is about the same in both developed and 3rd world. It's not because men are stubborn and hate doctors.
Bollocks, you're ignoring mortality causes and how they differ wildly in the two regions. Men live less in western countries because they aren't encouraged to take care of themselves and wind up with horrible heart diseases and ass cancer. Also, the western medical establishment has a long history of overmedicalising women on the basis that they're basically fucked-up versions of men, which actually screws men over because far fewer people are researching their problems. There's no pink ribbon for prostate cancer, and the effects of male depression are only starting to gain publicity thanks to stuff like Movember.
Meanwhile, men in poor countries die young from being beaten, stabbed, shot, macheted, blowed up, worked to death in mines, etc etc. They don't even get a chance at ass-cancer.
I think it's totally possible to legislate against what employers are thinking when they make employment decisions, and I think it's totally possible to prosecute them according to that law. The law stops them asking specific questions, no more, no less. Generally, you don't need to ask if someone is female.
I actually see some big differences.
For most of Western Europe the difference between male and female life expectancies is less than 5 years.
In much of Africa and the war-torn Middle East the gap is even smaller - 2-4 years. I suppose everyone is hard done by when they live in a war/famine zone.
In Eastern Europe/Russia the gap is very large - 10-13 years.
As Cat says, you really have to look at causes of death to get a better idea of why these differences in life expectancy occur.
Anyway, even with that all said and done, there is NOTHING that says you have to be part of the statistics. If you lead a healthy lifestyle and aren't drafted for a war there is nothing to stop you living just as long, if not longer, than your wife.
Social power != political power.
Abortion is legal in Italy and has been since 1978, as even the briefest of Google searches will tell you. Contraception is 'controversial' in all Catholic countries, yet it is widely available and used. I'm not even going to bother with your use of a specific, individual legal case to try and suggest a general social trend.
Have you lived in the same Italy that I have, because it doesn't sound like you 'know' Italy at all.
Well having come from a career where biological differences really do matter, beg to disagree. We can talk degrees of importance if you like, but examples do exist.
Fine, main drive: are you stating that biological differences between men and women never matter? Because that seems something of a reversal of what you were agreeing with earlier.
Which I already mentioned a page ago. However, there are scads more men who could snap the both of us like twigs, and I doubt that majority would change if women were conditioned equally to men. In general, men have more of a natural proclivity towards building muscle; this isn't social engineering, it's biology.
Like I outlined and you seemed to agree with, there exist general trends and specific examples; it isn't unfair to make general assumptions, but it is unfair to program for (or against) them, because that would deny the specific examples which break the general rule.
It's possible to sue employers under the Civil Rights Act as a rejected female applicant if they hire an unusually low proportion of female applicants, or if they hired a male candidate who was demonstrably less qualified (except, evidently, using the won't-get-pregnant test). Once they're sued, they have to hand over any and all documents relating to their hiring practices both specific to this case and in general in the process of discovery.
The standard of proof is actually quite low, though not as low as it is for racial discrimination.
As far as the practical benefits of this form of regulation, women have done significantly better in the workplace since these regulations were enacted. Whether or not that is entirely the result of the law or of larger social pressures is a much more difficult question, but I think it would be silly to argue that the law had no effect on the behavior of employers. The scheme seems to be working.
I thought this article was interesting:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.01/WhyWomenLiveLon.html
It cites a lot of reasons. Healthcare being one of them.
Some notable excerpts:
That is an extraordinarily bad idea, because there is no legal compulsion to have an equal workforce, only to offer equal opportunity. And hiring is such a massively subjective area that I would love to see how the prosecution argued that even a 'demonstrably less qualified' male candidate shouldn't be selected based on a hundred other qualities, such as the employer's judgement that their personality would fit better in the workplace.
I'm not saying that prejudice doesn't exist here, I'm saying it is impossible to prove, and attempts to do or strong-arm proof are damaging both to the legal system and to the principle of equality (see also: affirmative action, and it's enduring popularity amongst left-wing ideologists and absolutely nobody else).
Indeed. Any cases so far? Any successful ones? Also, I would be interested to see how many documents they could find before this legislation which stated in writing: she's female, black mark. You would have to go back pretty fucking far into the 20th century.
Confluence is not causation, as you almost acknowledge.. The scheme does not seem to be working unless you can offer some proof that the law is responsible for changes in attitude rather than other factors.
It's well-intentioned, but as a law it's a bad principle, bad precedent, and I'm guessing utterly impossible to prosecute.
The norwegian law requiring 40% of boards of large companies to be women had a really interesting effect: All companies hired from the same small pool of women, landing each women with up to dozens of commissions. This can be seen as there not being enough viable candidates, or as protecting the interest of the existing group by limiting the amount of newcomers. It's probably a mixture of both.
There are physical differences between men and women, just as there are between races. And to be honest, I think you should be allowed to select the best candidate for a function, even if that means that 90% of the candidates to be one sex, due to physical or social causes. I realize that there's tension between that statement and anti-discrimination laws, but discrimination is discarding or holding back a group not based on their qualifications, which this isnt.
In the Netherlands, women are lagging behind in amount of hours worked compared to the scandavian countries, mostly because the lower classes, immigrants and rural areas are very conservative value wise (stay at home moms), and even the higher educated often start working part-time when they have children. This causes this subject to appear in the news at regular intervals, and making it clear to me, that solutions are not simple. You can't really force people to work that have no desire too on short term, if they don't need it financially.
Most laws are well-intentioned. Most laws are bad laws. The law arguably changes attitudes but in many instances it might be for the worse and have the exact opposite intended effect.
Also...
Well, ignoring that specific law for the moment, there have been a number of succesful cases in the UK by women using anti-discrimination laws against their employers. Why are these bad laws? What is the negative consequence of not allowing employers to discriminate against employees?
Oh- and intellectual property rights. Are you against those? They clearly aren't an inherent right, so government should keep its nose out, yeah?
It turns out that it's often quite easy to prove. HR people will send each other emails and such - there's often a paper trail.
While it's more common to see sexual harassment suits under Title VII, racial discrimination suits and sex discrimination suits are prosecuted.
Post hoc propter hoc, yeah yeah yeah. However, it seems to be working in that lawsuits are being filed, if you take that as a measure of success.
As evidence, check this link out: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sex.html
23,247 charges of sex-based discrimination seems like a pretty sizable impact to me.
And still none of that says that you WILL die earlier than your wife.
Yes, men are at an increased risk of heart attacks and stroke. However, like Cat says, if they bothered to go to the doctor they could easily be identified as high risk and make lifestyle changes accordingly. My grandfather (dad's dad) has already had two heart attacks; since dropping some weight and following the guidelines that his doctor has given him, however, he's been a lot better. My dad, following the second heart attack, went to the doctor himself to get assessed. He's since learned how to adjust his diet in order to lower his cholesterol levels. He could have continued in blissful ignorance as many people do; now, though, there's no reason he should die at an earlier-than-expected age; he gets regular check-ups and keeps an eye on that cholesterol.
And that there are more women alive at age 100 than men isn't a surprise when men are likely to die earlier; and it still says nothing about the causes of death.
As Cat says, women's health issues are promoted a lot more over men's. Women are more aware of their dietary habits in their youth than men as they know how important it is to eat well and stay fit during pregnancy. The media also makes us more aware of the female body shape in general. A great deal of men get away with bad dietary habits in their late teens and early 20s with little ill effect and so fall into bad habits. Women are also hyper-aware of going through the menopause and of the risks of contracting diseases like osteoporosis and so again are more careful with their dietary habits. Women also go for more regular check-ups, smear tests etc.
Well isn't it a good thing that I provided some facts that were contrary to what Cat was asserting about Italy then! You know, the bits you left out from that post.
Well I for one was talking about that specific law. The succesful cases in the US have been from women usint anti-discrimination laws for unfair dismissal. Since that relies a record of behaviour in the workplace rather than a subjective judgement of a hirer, it is much easier to prove.
Not bad laws. Bad law. Don't conflate what I was saying with what KevinNash was saying.
I suspect this is a bait, but if it isn't, you can do look in the Jon Colbert thread where I wrote about just that issue. Since I'm thinking you've already seen that, thus the question, I'm not sure why you are asking me again.
Thank you, play again!
Are you going to start giving me the examples I asked for, or just continue to claim evidence without any, you know, evidence. It's also becoming increasingly clear that you are just talking about sex discrimination in general.
No no. Not "racial discrimination suits and sex discrimination suits". Show me cases specifically relating to what you were discussing re: that law & hiring practices please. I suspect successful examples don't exist.
No, I don't take filed lawsuits as a measure of success. I take successful lawsuits as a measure of success. And that doesn't even demonstrate impact, ecause you haven't shown a single one of those cases is about hiring practices, which is the cocking subject we were discussing.
Honestly, what is your point here? Sex discrimination happens, there have been lawsuits against sex discrimination? No shit. That isn't really what we were talking about though, is it? We were talking specifics of whether it is possible to effectively prosecute employers for what goes on in their head when they are hiring potential employees. Not how they treat actual employees. Not whether they beat their wives. Stick to the subject.
I ask you about snow in Luxembourg and you tell me, "well Europe is nice in summer!" :roll:
Gah gah gah gah gah!
This argument annoys me more then any other. Yes there are physical differences between men and women. This has almost nothing to do with suitability for employment in a general case, and definitely nothing to do with it when it comes to white-collar positions.
Moreover, no feminist is arguing that women be given 50% of every job in the first place.
I went to private school myself.
So because women are expected to both work and take the most care of children they're... not fit to work 60 hour weeks and raise a child?
Norway seems to be not only a special case, but a special case that everyone is skeptical of. Most feminists simply want ridiculous and artificial barriers removed. If that means that most women still can't break into Chippendale's, no one is going to be upset.
Hi-5 difficult to discuss socioeconomic matters with self-referencing examples buddy!
Did you know that having children improves a man's career possibilities?
Much DURRRing followed from me.
Let's take one example: Barbara McClintock.
Notable here is that she's the only woman to be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize in that category. Now, there are some important facts to consider: She never married, she never had children, she spent 12 hours a day at the lab, six days a week. She never retired, she kept on with her research until she died at age 90.
Here's a rather telling quote from the president of Princeton:
The tenth woman ever to receive a Nobel prize, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, never had children. In 2004 she started a foundation to give grants to female scientists to pay for babysitting and general household assistance.
If you look at Nobel prize winners, you'll find scientists with an incredibly focused dedication for their field of interest, often dedicating their entire life to it.
There are many similarities with autism here. A study by Simon Baron-Cohen showed that the parents/grandparents of children with autism were twice as likely to be engineers as any other career. Autism is also four times as common in men as in women.
Maybe as an academic I live in a rosecolored world regarding employement, but I really hear few tales of people not landing jobs due to gender. Maybe I'm not old enough yet (Mid twenties) for it to kick in.
Yeah, pretty much failed at reading there. Although since your facts also apply to the USA I don't see how it shows much about Italian housewives and their empowerment, but I give because its not that intresting a point to me.
All the rest was directed at Kevinnash, although I was unclear about that so way to go me yet again. Although I haven't read the Colbert thread so I have no idea what your views on the matter are.
Fair enough, Colbert thread just a weird coincidence then.
Like I said to the other guy, you can't really argue with anecdotal evidence, but this isn't involving specific people, it's the character of an entire country. But it's more or less impossible for me to convey it beyond the word 'matriarchy' without you actually having experienced the place.