-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
At what point will gender equality stop
- Thread starter fez
- Start date
This is one of the things about equality, it's not about being equal in how you treat people, it's about equality of opportunity.
I k ow we're meant to look at that pic and go "oh but how unfair".
But given tree climbing seems to be a key part of the outcome its a perfectly sensible test.
After all if you're looking for a new tree surgeon you'd be insane to employ somone who can't work at heights
Career choice seems to be the biggest issue.
Nearly all the women around here in thier early 20s go and do care work, or teaching assistant or shop staff.
While the men go into industry.
Why are women choosing to go into low paying careers when the companies down the road are screaming out for them
Nearly all the women around here in thier early 20s go and do care work, or teaching assistant or shop staff.
While the men go into industry.
Why are women choosing to go into low paying careers when the companies down the road are screaming out for them
No he's bang on you're saying men should not be given jobs bevause theyre men.
So as the proponent you should really go first.
Or is this anothet of your left wing "everyone should do more to help....by everyone i mean everyone but me" things?
I have read you post, the answer isn't there, so explain it.
You say it's bad to push ~50% of the population out of a job because of sexism, but then sexism is exactly what you propose. The best person for the job should get it, but you want to be sexist and push out the men and replace them with women.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,438
true, it'd cultural conditioning all right, you have a baby boy you give him lego and meccano or rc cars etc
you have a baby girl you give her dolls, little pushchairs and those plastic babies that have some freakishly strange functionality.
it's the same in tv etc, women are almost always portrayed these days as scientists, and if there is an engineer odds are it's a man or a woman being lumped with being an almost comedy character.
me ma puts it quite well that a baby has no concept of what it is, boy/girl whatever until it gets told by society.
But what does society do that makes girls uninterested in acience and maths and choose not to study them beyond the required minimum
Gender equality would stop when it exists because it would have reached its goal.
Sexual equality would stop when it exists because it would have reached its goal.
Feminism will never stop because it has a goal that can never be reached. Even if there weren't any male people around at all, there would still be something that could be used. An increasingly narrow "right" way for women to think, probably. An ideology that defines people by groups and advocates everything for only the "right" group doesn't have a goal and therefore is never-ending. That's the nature of irrational prejudice.
Sexual equality would stop when it exists because it would have reached its goal.
Feminism will never stop because it has a goal that can never be reached. Even if there weren't any male people around at all, there would still be something that could be used. An increasingly narrow "right" way for women to think, probably. An ideology that defines people by groups and advocates everything for only the "right" group doesn't have a goal and therefore is never-ending. That's the nature of irrational prejudice.
This is one of the things about equality, it's not about being equal in how you treat people, it's about equality of opportunity.
That picture is deliberately misleading. It's very useful for propaganda "justifying" irrational prejudice and discrimination, which is why it was made.
Equality is about relevant equality of opportunity.
Here's a random simple example based on your picture (and which shows part of why it is so wrong).
Becca Swanson and I apply for selection for something.
Scenario 1: The selection exam is height. I'm taller than her, so I get selected.
Scenario 2: The selection exam is strength. She's stronger than me, so she gets selected.
Scenario 3: This is the scenario you seem to favour, since you're opposed to applicants being given the same exam and treated the same way. We're each given different exams so there's no way to compare us and which of us is selected depends wholly on whichever irrational prejudices are fashionable at that time and place. The exams are just a facade to pretend that the selection is equal and to corrupt the whole idea of equality.
Scenario 4: This is the scenario I favour. We're given the same exam, which has been constructed to measure whatever is relevant to the thing we're applying for. Which of us is selected depends wholly on how good we show ourselves to be at whatever it is we're applying to do. Which might (or might not) be climbing a tree. Or lifting an astonishing amount of weight. Or having attractive hands. The key point is that we're both assessed in the same way with the same exam because we're applying for the same position. Anything else is deliberate inequality.
Last edited:
Unfortunately for every ultra feminist/mentalist there are two people that make their position almost make sense.
A solution to this is to allow equal parenting leave, for both the mother and the father. The government, in their wisdom, took forever to actually legislate this, but now it is available hopefully maternity/paternity leave will become far more equal amongst the sexes and solve much of the issue you're discussing, which really is a fairly large problem for many small companies.
On the flip side there are still women (wife of a friend of mine as an example) that will insist there is no way the husband is taking "her" leave... But again, hopefully that will start to dwindle in the future as well.
All that said, take time off for whatever reason and it should affect your career, relative to the same person that didn't take time off. Whether that 6 months maternity/paternity leave, a sabbatical to go travelling, or 6 months off after moving countries (as examples). You have 6 months less experience in your role, and as such you are 6 months "behind" someone who hasn't taken that time off. Again, much of this will hopefully be solved if the taking time off for parenting newborns becomes more even between the sexes.
I heard a very interesting comment a few days ago pertinent to you comments.
Basically one of the reasons many countries with massive gender inequality are so far behind the leading countries economically is because they are basically only using 50% of their human capital and brain power effectively.
We certainly aren't at 100%, but at the same time I don't believe positive discrimination is the way to go to get there.
I think this is a key point in itself and shows a larger key point: the way to sexual equality is sexual equality.
This is one area where there will always be some degree of difference due to biology. A person who is pregnant and gives birth is going to need some more time off than someone who isn't and doesn't, for genuinely relevant reasons. But it doesn't have to be anywhere near as large a difference as it is now.
That's not how it works. Not everyone is paid the same - different trades, roles and ranks get paid differently. It's damn right that a woman doing HR, or working as a Mechanic, a Loader, or Pilot should get paid the same as a man doing the same job (all other things being equal). The difference is women can't (yet) apply for a few specific front line roles.
Women in the above roles will still be sent to combat zones, just not the front line (which they won't be fully trained for, not being in front line units).
Exactly, and IIRC this specific issue is built into the legislation.
As well as agreeing with that sentence, I'd also cut it down to another key point: I don't believe positive discrimination.
All discrimination is positive to the bigots who support it. That's why they support it.
No discrimination not based solely on the task is positive to people who advocate equality. No sexism. No racism. Etc. The only allowable discrimination is based solely on the task, i.e. requiring appropriate knowledge and abilities. For example, I shouldn't have a job as a wine taster because I can't discriminate between different wines well enough to be good at that job.
Of course, when a person favours "positive discrimination" what they mean is "irrational discrimination that I agree with based on irrelevant aspects of biology". They don't mean "rational discrimination based on relevant abilities".
So to me, "positive discrimination" is a thing that cannot exist. Imposing inferior treatment on people solely because they are the "wrong" sex or whatever can never be a positive thing.
Never said it was easy....but as a business you need to be able to deal with people suddenly becoming unavailable for extended periods of time. At least with maternity, if you're paying attention to your staff you'll get some advance warning!
I don't mean watching their waistlines either
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that employee X that got married a few months ago, may be good chance they'll be wanting to start a family soon.