|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2018 21:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 4:32:51 GMT
I'm not sure how one is to tally up the score to the determine win, lose, or draw to begin with. There are certainly male and female dominated fields, but how you tally up the total depends on what kind of value you put on those fields. EG, is more men in business and more women in childcare a "draw" or a win for one of them? Further, the "draw," at least in the way it's being phrased in that excerpt, would depend partly on an equal amount of women wanting to compete in those fields, and I simply don't know if an equal amount desire to, and if they don't then what's influencing that desire, or if they do then what's stopping them. Something like business is pretty close to a meritocracy in a free market, eg. Similar when it comes to government and vote-getting, or even medicine. That's not to say women might not face more discrimination and/or discouragement, but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding, as they say.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 2, 2018 10:24:44 GMT
I'm a male nurse.
My co-workers have always been around 80% female.
Those who fight for gender equality stay far away from nursing, and that's great. Their outrage is selective, they care about gender equality selectively, when it suits their purpose.
I'm glad the social justice warriors stay away from nursing because I don't want to work with a male nurse who got the job just because they needed more males in nursing. I don't want to work with anyone hired to fill a 'diversity quota'.
There are some jobs men gravitate towards, and some jobs women gravitate towards. Some people see sexism everywhere, it's easier than taking personal responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 11:54:09 GMT
The battle of the sexes will never be won. There's too much fraternisation with the enemy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 12:11:02 GMT
The battle of the sexes will destroy society if it's fought on the assumption that gender is an entirely social construct and that misogynistic discrimination explains 100% of the disparity in outcomes between men and women. Biological and psychological differences between men and women do exist, and it's never going to work to try and iron these out so that there are an equal number of male and female firefighters, or male and female ruthless CEOs. If that's the outcome you want, you're going to have to force people (mostly women) into roles with which they're not comfortable, and there's going to be a lot of hiring of people unqualified for the job. Doing so will create a huge, possibly irreconcilable rift between the sexes.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2018 15:03:50 GMT
I met the Battle of the Sexes once. She was a knockout.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 4, 2018 22:17:27 GMT
I'm not sure how one is to tally up the score to the determine win, lose, or draw to begin with. There are certainly male and female dominated fields, but how you tally up the total depends on what kind of value you put on those fields. EG, is more men in business and more women in childcare a "draw" or a win for one of them? Further, the "draw," at least in the way it's being phrased in that excerpt, would depend partly on an equal amount of women wanting to compete in those fields, and I simply don't know if an equal amount desire to, and if they don't then what's influencing that desire, or if they do then what's stopping them. Something like business is pretty close to a meritocracy in a free market, eg. Similar when it comes to government and vote-getting, or even medicine. That's not to say women might not face more discrimination and/or discouragement, but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding, as they say. ...and yet if you read the whole article, that is not entirely what it is about. It extrapolates what can happen ( and often does ) in a private interpersonal relationship between male and female partners for both partners to be equal in power, yet able to have each of their expectations, desires and needs fulfilled within the relationship for mutual AND individual happiness, more generally in society. This will of course included greater fairness in all the fields of work that she mentions, butt the point is that there are only a finite number of opportunities, of which men currently take the lion's share. ( mainly due to the additional needs of family ) IF you accept the basic premise of gender equality ( not to say sameness, just equality of opportunity ) then it stands to reason that things must change and men must make room for more working women, women in equal responsibility in social activities like clubs committees community events etc etc etc IF you accept other basic concepts that economies require women to work out of the home, that a father has equal rights to a mother, (taking into account the actual physical biology of motherhood which is unavoidable so far in science) that there will be intrinsic differences in the needs of single and childless couples and those who are working 'families' then the concept of equally shared responsibility for a family needs a more equitable allocation of tasks to achieve this. I am not suggesting that couples can't choose their own means of achieving this butt the point of articles like this is to point out that there is currently an imbalance and what would be required to achieve a redress in the equality balance in society for the benefit of all. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Apr 5, 2018 0:05:27 GMT
male jack hammer operators just look hotter is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 5, 2018 0:20:31 GMT
You know why it is a battle? Because we are human beings, which, as you may all remember, are animals, ruled as the rest of the mammals by ego, except for haven been given/cursed with thumbs, and the ability to, but to a greater level, communicate. That changes everything, natural earth mammal rules-wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 1:42:58 GMT
I'm not sure how one is to tally up the score to the determine win, lose, or draw to begin with. There are certainly male and female dominated fields, but how you tally up the total depends on what kind of value you put on those fields. EG, is more men in business and more women in childcare a "draw" or a win for one of them? Further, the "draw," at least in the way it's being phrased in that excerpt, would depend partly on an equal amount of women wanting to compete in those fields, and I simply don't know if an equal amount desire to, and if they don't then what's influencing that desire, or if they do then what's stopping them. Something like business is pretty close to a meritocracy in a free market, eg. Similar when it comes to government and vote-getting, or even medicine. That's not to say women might not face more discrimination and/or discouragement, but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding, as they say. ...and yet if you read the whole article, that is not entirely what it is about. It extrapolates what can happen ( and often does ) in a private interpersonal relationship between male and female partners for both partners to be equal in power, yet able to have each of their expectations, desires and needs fulfilled within the relationship for mutual AND individual happiness, more generally in society. This will of course included greater fairness in all the fields of work that she mentions, butt the point is that there are only a finite number of opportunities, of which men currently take the lion's share. ( mainly due to the additional needs of family ) IF you accept the basic premise of gender equality ( not to say sameness, just equality of opportunity ) then it stands to reason that things must change and men must make room for more working women, women in equal responsibility in social activities like clubs committees community events etc etc etc IF you accept other basic concepts that economies require women to work out of the home, that a father has equal rights to a mother, (taking into account the actual physical biology of motherhood which is unavoidable so far in science) that there will be intrinsic differences in the needs of single and childless couples and those who are working 'families' then the concept of equally shared responsibility for a family needs a more equitable allocation of tasks to achieve this. I am not suggesting that couples can't choose their own means of achieving this butt the point of articles like this is to point out that there is currently an imbalance and what would be required to achieve a redress in the equality balance in society for the benefit of all. I did read the article. I don't have a problem with the general thesis, only reservations about the bit you quoted and its implications. I do accept the basic premise of gender equality, but under gender equality that would mean men would only have to "make room for more working women" IF there are more equally-or-more-qualified women competing for the same jobs or positions. That may not necessarily be the case (and if it isn't, there may be complex reasons for why not). As for equality on the more personal level of couples, I think it would be tremendously difficult to try to paint a macro picture of what that looks like. There are too many couples that mix too many different personality types in too many different life circumstances to try to add up and determine "balance." At least on the subject of employment (business, government, etc.) you can look at statistics, but that's a bit harder when it comes to domestic situations. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 5, 2018 1:53:01 GMT
...and yet if you read the whole article, that is not entirely what it is about. It extrapolates what can happen ( and often does ) in a private interpersonal relationship between male and female partners for both partners to be equal in power, yet able to have each of their expectations, desires and needs fulfilled within the relationship for mutual AND individual happiness, more generally in society. This will of course included greater fairness in all the fields of work that she mentions, butt the point is that there are only a finite number of opportunities, of which men currently take the lion's share. ( mainly due to the additional needs of family ) IF you accept the basic premise of gender equality ( not to say sameness, just equality of opportunity ) then it stands to reason that things must change and men must make room for more working women, women in equal responsibility in social activities like clubs committees community events etc etc etc IF you accept other basic concepts that economies require women to work out of the home, that a father has equal rights to a mother, (taking into account the actual physical biology of motherhood which is unavoidable so far in science) that there will be intrinsic differences in the needs of single and childless couples and those who are working 'families' then the concept of equally shared responsibility for a family needs a more equitable allocation of tasks to achieve this. I am not suggesting that couples can't choose their own means of achieving this butt the point of articles like this is to point out that there is currently an imbalance and what would be required to achieve a redress in the equality balance in society for the benefit of all. I did read the article. I don't have a problem with the general thesis, only reservations about the bit you quoted and its implications. I do accept the basic premise of gender equality, but under gender equality that would mean men would only have to "make room for more working women" IF there are more equally-or-more-qualified women competing for the same jobs or positions. That may not necessarily be the case (and if it isn't, there may be complex reasons for why not). As for equality on the more personal level of couples, I think it would be tremendously difficult to try to paint a macro picture of what that looks like. There are too many couples that mix too many different personality types in too many different life circumstances to try to add up and determine "balance." At least on the subject of employment (business, government, etc.) you can look at statistics, but that's a bit harder when it comes to domestic situations. Of course, this is not a quantifiable situation in the domestic situation, butt if there was a more equal gender balance in responsibility for the WHOLE of a shared life which includes children, then men may have to give more space. In Australia, the figures on the amount of childcare, housework, paid work etc, are positive in that women do more of the unpaid stuff often as WELL as doing the paid, AND consequently have less free or leisure time. Another positive for equality is when there is domestic violence and women have a better opportunity to leave due to a more equal financial situation. ..and the problem is? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 5, 2018 2:02:06 GMT
I did read the article. I don't have a problem with the general thesis, only reservations about the bit you quoted and its implications. I do accept the basic premise of gender equality, but under gender equality that would mean men would only have to "make room for more working women" IF there are more equally-or-more-qualified women competing for the same jobs or positions. That may not necessarily be the case (and if it isn't, there may be complex reasons for why not). As for equality on the more personal level of couples, I think it would be tremendously difficult to try to paint a macro picture of what that looks like. There are too many couples that mix too many different personality types in too many different life circumstances to try to add up and determine "balance." At least on the subject of employment (business, government, etc.) you can look at statistics, but that's a bit harder when it comes to domestic situations. Of course, this is not a quantifiable situation in the domestic situation, butt if there was a more equal gender balance in responsibility for the WHOLE of a shared life which includes children, then men may have to give more space. In Australia, the figures on the amount of childcare, housework, paid work etc, are positive in that women do more of the unpaid stuff often as WELL as doing the paid, AND consequently have less free or leisure time. Another positive for equality is when there is domestic violence and women have a better opportunity to leave due to a more equal financial situation. ..and the problem is? I think we're in agreement on the top part. There's no "problem," per se, but some only look at the statistics for stuff like how many women are in government or business and chalk that all up to gender inequality; but that particular inequality is only wrong if there are as many equally-or-more qualified women competing for those jobs, and that might not always be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 5, 2018 2:46:22 GMT
Of course, this is not a quantifiable situation in the domestic situation, butt if there was a more equal gender balance in responsibility for the WHOLE of a shared life which includes children, then men may have to give more space. In Australia, the figures on the amount of childcare, housework, paid work etc, are positive in that women do more of the unpaid stuff often as WELL as doing the paid, AND consequently have less free or leisure time. Another positive for equality is when there is domestic violence and women have a better opportunity to leave due to a more equal financial situation. ..and the problem is? I think we're in agreement on the top part. There's no "problem," per se, but some only look at the statistics for stuff like how many women are in government or business and chalk that all up to gender inequality; but that particular inequality is only wrong if there are as many equally-or-more qualified women competing for those jobs, and that might not always be the case. I totally, agree, however we have then, to look at why there are NOT enough qualifies women competing for those jobs. Expertise, experience and qualification takes time, and IF the infrastructure has discriminated in allowing women NOT to get to that position, then the argument is whilst being moot, at least should be taken into account...NOT on an individual basis with preference for women candidates, butt that down the line for women to have equality of opportunity to get those prerequisites....which is NOT happening now. This of necessity has to be a formative gradual and sensible process with goodwill on both sides and pragmatism about the differences. |
|
