Men's rights.
14 Oct 2012, 2:12 pm
DerStadtschutz wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Godfrey Bloom, of Tequila's beloved UKIP, said he wouldn't hire women as they might get pregnant, the 'problem' of which is how the matter of parental leave is framed in this country.
I think Godders is spot on. I wouldn't employ a woman - or in fact, anyone - if there was a large risk that they would end up leave me out of pocket. It's basic economics.
The femiloons want it all their own way, yet again - they want women to work, but they also want the protections for women to be so onerous on the employer that it's simply not worth the hassle of employing them. This is right across the board, though.
Not fair on women who don't want children, if people assume that you're going to have kids just because you're a fertile woman.
And it's not fair for women to assume that all men are rapists just because they have a penis.
Precisely.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
14 Oct 2012, 2:21 pm
LKL wrote:
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-male-decline.html?_r=0
Hoff-Sommers is outdated, and while she claims to be a feminist, so did Sarah Palin.
Hoff-Sommers is outdated, and while she claims to be a feminist, so did Sarah Palin.
What exactly makes someone qualified as a "feminist", because just based on the discussions on this board there are 3 - 4 different definitions. It's almost as if everyone who identifies her or himself as a feminist has their own definition of it. It's a lot like Christians in that regard.
True, but if, say, Khalid Sheik Mohammad suddenly started calling himself a Christian, while changing none of his rhetoric or behavior (including referencing Mohammad and calling Americans 'infidels,'), should we accept his new definition of 'Christianity'? That's about what it's like for Sarah Palin to call herself a feminist, and it's not too far off from Hoff-Sommers calling herself a feminist.
That article has a "few" problems:
Quote:
Quote:
Men who request family leave are often viewed as weak or uncompetitive and face a greater risk of being demoted or downsized. And men who have ever quit work for family reasons end up earning significantly less than other male employees, even when controlling for the effects of age, race, education, occupation, seniority and work hours.
There is a certain logic to this due to the "risk of hire" if you hire a person who has previously quit work due to family issues or taken extra time off for family issues, there is the risk that they may do it again. It may not be a genuine risk, but perception is reality.
Yes, there is, but part of what feminism advocates for both men and women is that rearing children not be penalized by society. Think of it as a tragedy of the capitalist commons: each employer loses significantly more than they gain by having employees take time off for their kids, but overall we lose out hugely because people are having fewer and fewer kids when they have the option.
Quote:
Quote:
Among married couples when both partners are employed, wives earned an average of 38.5 percent of family income in 2010. In that year nearly 30 percent of working wives out-earned their working husbands, a huge increase from just 4 percent in 1970. But when we include all married-couple families, not just dual-earner ones, the economic clout of wives looks a lot weaker.
In only 20 percent of all married-couple families does the wife earn half or more of all family income, according to Professor Cohen, and in 35 percent of marriages, the wife earns less than 10 percent.
In only 20 percent of all married-couple families does the wife earn half or more of all family income, according to Professor Cohen, and in 35 percent of marriages, the wife earns less than 10 percent.
Is the first number adjusted for choice of occupation, number of hours put in, seniority and other non-gender related factors? Why is the second part even in the article? In embryo it shows the problem with "socilology" that when numbers aren't what we need them to be we alter the criteria so the numbers fit our perception. These are all numbers which must be viewed in terms of working hours, educational level, the relative income of the spouse, occupation and so on. Just the income of the spouse alone can distort the number if you have one part making 3.000.000 a year and the other 250.000, they would fall in the 35% number despite both of them making great money.
The reason pay statistics are an "epic fail" is that you can't simply take "amount earned by men/ by number of men", "amount earned by women / by number of women" and then make claims. Doing so, shows a completely lack of any sort of sense, be it economic or common.
This article isn't about /why/ women earn less; it's about debunking the claim that women are out-performing men on a national level. It doesn't matter why women earn less in this context.
Quote:
Men control the most important industries, especially technology because they are areas of study where men largely outnumber women.
Well, duh. Have you ever asked yourself why this might be so? Do you think that the environment of online gaming might leak over into the tech sector in general, making it extremely unpleasant for women trying to get into that sector?
Quote:
...out of the top 10, 4 are self-made IE they made their own companies. 6 inherited their wealth from the previous generation. I hardly view this as a "women vs men" issue, it hinges on women to start more companies and grow them until they are billion dollar enterprises. Very few non-entrepreneur/non-inherited rich people are on the 400 list. You should also keep in mind that in the case of most of the men on the list, they are married and their wives tend to outlive them.
The gap in longevity is shrinking, and recent research has shown that eunuchs outlive intact males; all these men have to do is castrate themselves, and they'll live as long as their wives. If it's a woman's choice to earn less by having children, then it's a man's choice to live a shorter lifespan by keeping his balls. As for male entrepreneurs succeeding more: again, if two people are looking for venture capital funds, and one is male and the other is female, which one is more likely to get the funds they need to succeed?
Quote:
Why do women make less than men with similar skills and education? Beats me really, it could have to do with professional choice.
Going into HRM instead of Finance, going into pediatrics instead of surgery, sociology instead of engineering, graphic design instead of software engineering may have something to do with it.
Going into HRM instead of Finance, going into pediatrics instead of surgery, sociology instead of engineering, graphic design instead of software engineering may have something to do with it.
That probably does have something to do with it, but women with the same careers also earn less than their male counterparts.
Quote:
The congress bit, one would have to ask first women, are they likely to vote for a female candidate, are they as likely as men to run as candidates, is it harder to get campaign financing. There are a lot of issues and shooting out an open ended question like this is intended as manipulation to make people think of gender discrimination immediately upon reading it.
And why do you suppose women are less likely to run? Maybe because they are mocked and dissected and threatened in a sexual way much more than their male counterparts? Look at what happened to Palin and Clinton. Palin might not be a real feminist, but what happened to her when she ran is a feminist issue.
Quote:
Quote:
Today women make up almost 40 percent of full-time workers in management. But the median wages of female managers are just 73 percent of what male managers earn. And although women have significantly increased their representation among high earners in America over the past half-century, only 4 percent of the C.E.O.’s in Fortune’s top 1,000 companies are female.
First we need to look at the companies in which these wage earners work. A manager in bumbledump Idaho is likely to make less than a manager in New York. Then we have to look at industries, since the pay differs greatly between them. Then we need to look into fields within the companies themselves. A HR manager generally makes less than a financial manager or a Sales manager.
Yeah, and when we look at women managers within the same branch of the same company, they are earning less and are promoted less. Look at the particulars of the Wal-Mart suit, for example.
Quote:
Quote:
Similarly, a 2010 Catalyst survey found that female M.B.A.’s were paid an average of $4,600 less than men in starting salaries and continue to be outpaced by men in rank and salary growth throughout their careers, even if they remain childless.
This comes down to work location and field. Men are overrepresented in finance, investment banking and venture capital which is the industry where MBA's earn the highest salaries.
again, why? Why are women uncomfortable in those positions?
The point of the article is that all of the hand-wringing about women outpacing men is BS. Although I've responded individually to your pull-quotes above, none of it changes the fact that men still have a dramatic socioeconomic advantage over women, in general, regardless of the causes of it. Hoff-Sommers' hand-wringing is ignorant of the actual reality on the ground for women and girls.
When a man doesn't feel comfortable working a certain position, does he go whine and b***h to congress and try to get laws changed? If women don't feel comfortable in a field, then they can find another goddamn field like we have to.
There's a big difference between choosing to keep what you already have and choosing to create something that doesn't exist yet. In order to keep your balls, you do nothing. In order to have a child, you have to open your legs and accept sperm into your vagina. That analogy doesn't work at all.
14 Oct 2012, 2:21 pm
DerStadtschutz wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Godfrey Bloom, of Tequila's beloved UKIP, said he wouldn't hire women as they might get pregnant, the 'problem' of which is how the matter of parental leave is framed in this country.
I think Godders is spot on. I wouldn't employ a woman - or in fact, anyone - if there was a large risk that they would end up leave me out of pocket. It's basic economics.
The femiloons want it all their own way, yet again - they want women to work, but they also want the protections for women to be so onerous on the employer that it's simply not worth the hassle of employing them. This is right across the board, though.
Not fair on women who don't want children, if people assume that you're going to have kids just because you're a fertile woman.
And it's not fair for women to assume that all men are rapists just because they have a penis.
I never claimed that it was.
There are men in this thread claiming that it's fair to assume that women are going to have babies.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
14 Oct 2012, 2:28 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Godfrey Bloom, of Tequila's beloved UKIP, said he wouldn't hire women as they might get pregnant, the 'problem' of which is how the matter of parental leave is framed in this country.
I think Godders is spot on. I wouldn't employ a woman - or in fact, anyone - if there was a large risk that they would end up leave me out of pocket. It's basic economics.
The femiloons want it all their own way, yet again - they want women to work, but they also want the protections for women to be so onerous on the employer that it's simply not worth the hassle of employing them. This is right across the board, though.
Not fair on women who don't want children, if people assume that you're going to have kids just because you're a fertile woman.
And it's not fair for women to assume that all men are rapists just because they have a penis.
I never claimed that it was.
There are men in this thread claiming that it's fair to assume that women are going to have babies.
Assumption:
Noun: A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".
The action of taking power or responsibility: "the assumption of an active role in regional settlements".
Statistical probability
A probability provides a quantatative description of the likely occurrence of a particular event. Probability is conventionally expressed on a scale from 0 to 1; a rare event has a probability close to 0, a very common event has a probability close to 1.
The probability of an event has been defined as its long-run relative frequency. It has also been thought of as a personal degree of belief that a particular event will occur (subjective probability).
In some experiments, all outcomes are equally likely. For example if you were to choose one winner in a raffle from a hat, all raffle ticket holders are equally likely to win, that is, they have the same probability of their ticket being chosen. This is the equally-likely outcomes model and is defined to be:
P(E) = number of outcomes corresponding to event E
total number of outcomes
There is a difference.
14 Oct 2012, 2:32 pm
^There is, but some people take that beyond statistical likelihood. Like the UKIP politician who said he would refuse to hire women. full stop. That goes beyond a rational assessment of probability, and Tequila stuck up for him.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
14 Oct 2012, 2:52 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
^There is, but some people take that beyond statistical likelihood. Like the UKIP politician who said he would refuse to hire women. full stop. That goes beyond a rational assessment of probability, and Tequila stuck up for him.
I think if people want to restrict employment opportunities for women based on "statistical probabilities" in relation to arbitrary biological characteristics, they should be prepared to pay higher taxes to provide unemployed women with extra monetary benefits.
You don't get to deny a person the opportunity to work based on factors he cannot control in a society where working is the primary means by which people access basic necessities for life, and expect to escape responsibility for your actions. And you also don't get to turn around and complain that "women have it easier," either.
Personally, I'd love to get paid to sit at home all day.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Gay Rights Activists Calling For More International Pressure |
06 Apr 2024, 7:46 pm |
| Grotesque Human Rights Scandal Happening To Autistic People |
05 Apr 2024, 7:25 am |
| Deaf people's rights and deaf community politics |
20 May 2024, 7:04 am |
