Often it is personal choices that contribute to it. Participating in crime? Aggression and fighting?
My comparison weighs up. The whole point is that there's often pressures and forces that cause people to make certain "decisions" (I quote that because it's not always really a free choice when there's so much influence involved or when you don't even realize you have a choice).
There absolutely is forces against women asking for more money. There is reasons why men and women "choose" careers and why those careers pay how they do. There is pressure on women to have children. Men want children too, you know. Why is it assumed that women take a huge hit career-wise to attend to household and child issues? Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this assumption.
However hard or easy the physical tasks of raising a family are is irrelevant. Family should come first before serving some company. We should encourage that. Mothers AND fathers should be involved as much as possible without the negative repercussions.
First world countries are, for the most part, not overpopulated nor contributing to global overpopulation.
Participation in violence is still not a personal choice to have a higher level of violence put against you. That's like saying because you take part in a heated discussion which is getting everyone angry that you're making a personal choice to have violence inflicted on you simply because it's a possible outcome.
Unless men were somehow being told by society that they should demand higher pay then I'm not sure how these forces can make two different outcomes like that. It could also be down to biological aspects, such as testosterone levels making you take more or less risks, which not accepting a job unless you have a higher pay is a risk to take of rejection. What influences are you talking about exactly here?
What reasons are there for men picking certain careers, same goes for women? Again, I'd say testosterone may have something to do with it, hence why more men are likely to go in to riskier careers aswell as more physical ones. Not sure what you mean by why those careers pay the way they do, though. If you could elaborate.
I'm not entirely sure where the pressure of women having children comes from. Maybe it's simply because I'm not a woman but as part of the society that apparently does this I haven't noticed it. Possibly because it's the norm for women to have children that it's expected? Which it's simple enough to just not follow those expectations.
Why is it expected for women to attend to the household and child issues? I'd suppose it's because on average men are more likely to work in harder and riskier jobs and more likely to be the bread winner and so spend more time at work and doing harder work on top of that as the woman so due to the man on average that is bringing in more money to provide which results in more work, it's understandable that the female would compensate by doing extra work at home. Ofcourse, same goes for men if the sexes are reversed.
Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this. Meeeeeh. On one hand I can see that happening and think it's wrong. On the other I can understand it. Women can go on maternity leave and do so far more than men go on paternity leave if it's available. So essentially, by hiring a woman, they're taking a gamble for a certain period of time of them hiring someone who won't take that long pay-leave or someone who would. My view for that would be that maternity leave should either be made to go on for a far smaller period of time or it shouldn't be accepted at all, which would eliminate the whole issue of taking that gamble which the employer may have to pay for an employees personal life choices. That way that assumption would go away mostly if not entirely due to that gamble no longer being an issue. Same would go for paternity leave.
You say about how family should come first and it seems like you don't realize (I may be mistaken, so don't bite my head off over this) that a lot of the times work comes first so that the family comes first, if that makes sense. They need the money to provide for their family, you can't really have one without the other unless you're on some sort of government benefits.
I don't have an issue with people being mothers or fathers before anything else even if I think it's easier in comparisson to a career but I also think that people juggling family life and a career are at the risk of having their career effecting their family or their family effecting their career. You can have both if done properly, sometimes even do extremely well in both, but there are risks and troubles along the way.
Pssht, you say that but what about 'dem illegal aliens? THEY TOOK UR JERBZ!
The point here is to examine the forces behind the choices and realize not all choices are made freely. You can explain away a situation by pointing out choices made but that's not good enough and it's often not fair, as I just showed you with the example of dead men. I could simply say more men die because of choices they make, that's all, end of discussion- but that's unfair, it's callous, and it doesn't truly examine or help solve the problem. Obviously we need to ask why men are making such choices, what pressures are involved and how can we help.
Your opinions here seem to come from a place of upholding the status quo. Try asking why things are how they are and if it's really right or good, or "not that bad", rather. For examples, ask why is it ok to punish people for having a family? Why is it normal or ok for men to spend so much time away from home or children? Could more people work from home? More flexible schedules? Pay people a decent wage? How can workplaces be more family-friendly? Less stressful? Allow more for personal life while not taking a heavy toll on finances or professional success? And so on. How can we help end discrimination? How do we stop holding ourselves and others back with these heavily ingrained gender roles? Those are all questions worth thinking about.
I'm not really understanding your choices aren't freely made point. There isn't a visible bar against women making the choice to ask for a higher salary so I'm not sure how that ties in with your point about choices not being made freely. I wrote a ton out here but deleted it because I ended up rambling. I'll try be brief so I don't bombard you with a huge wall of text again.
^^^^Ha! Hahahahaha. After typing all this out I have to laugh at my failed attempt at being brief. I suck so hard. Lol. Sorry for this huge wall of text.
Men are more likely to take risks, right? From what I read, which has a lot to do with testosterone in terms of risk taking compared to men and women. I may be mistaken but that's the jist of what I've seen. Due to this, depending on a man's financial state and environment, he's either going to take risks lawfully or not so lawfully. So men that commit crime take those risks for opportunities where as men that don't need to are more likely to take risks in terms of how they gain opportunities (work, etc). Could that not then be due to biology and the whole testosterone thing? That men are generally more likely to take the risk for an opportunity just like a criminal is likely to take a risk for an opportunity they see?
Basically, what if the difference is primarily due to biology and not some bar society has made? Which would explain why men die taking unlawful risks just as they do make risks on their jobs? That it's in man's nature to take risks more than women and how they die is primarily due to other factors such as environment and so on? For example, I'm sure you're aware that men make the vast majority of workforce deaths. Are we to change that by seeing why men take those risks and lead them away from those jobs they want to do and quite frankly need done or do we focus on how to alter the environment they choose to be in so that risk of death is far less likely?
I'm not trying to uphold some sort of status quo, moreso asking if the status quo needs altered. I don't believe most men ask for higher pay, I may be wrong, just that more men than women do. So the status quo is that the majority isn't asking for higher pay, some do and some don't. I just don't think it's fair to say that it's an injustice against women for women not taking the initiative as much as men do for earning more money in this regard. As if to say because one person asked for an extra piece of candy and the other didn't that there's an injustice against that person that didn't recieve the extra candy even though they could of asked and recieved the same, if not more. If you want to encourage that person to ask for more candy then nobody in their right mind will take issue but I think it's understandable when people take issue with those people that didn't ask blaming everyone else for them not asking for the extra candy, if you get what I mean?
You ask me to ask why is it ok to punish a person for having a family but I don't think that's what's happening. A lot of people forget, not directly aiming this at you but you may think the same, that employers are there for the employee to get money to sustain life when in reality the employer is there to work for the employer, the employee is an investment. When people suffer in their career because their personal family choice got in the way, that effects the employer's business and then the employee is not as much of an investment as the person without those issues. It's not so much punishment towards these people as much as it is ensuring bad investments aren't taken over more beneficial ones. It may be nice if that wasn't the case but the truth is that the employer is there for a reason and it isn't to ensure the employee's personal life is running smooth and easy, it's to get the job done.
As for why it's ok for men to spend so much time away from children? Honestly, it's necessary. Not for the man specifically to do it but someone has to bring home the bacon and women are happy for men to be the ones doing it in general. I remember hearing that a study said men value themselves and identify themselves on their careers? I may be mistaken but if that's the case then we'd have to look at why that is, and my guess is that it has a lot to do with the expectation of men to provide, one women uphold a lot (not all), that women would like a man who provides for them. So I would assume that and other factors is which why men value themselves on their careers which leads them to focus on their careers moreso than family which leads to women being in those positions of looking after the family. If that's to change then I think there'd need to be a massive change in women wanting a man to provide for them and shifting it to desiring a man who is around the kids far more, or atleast be an even amount between the two types. However I don't see that happening.
Side note. Did you see that recent article about one in four women being breadwinners now in the family? That it's effecting women negatively due to the expectations put on them due to it? I don't know how but I feel like that somehow ties in to this point.
Personally, I'm not too great with economics. So the rest I don't feel like I could field the questions. I'm pretty sure it isn't as simple as raising the wages of people and that making jobs more family friendly would differ extremely from job types. So overall I can't say I know enough on that aspect.
As for the gender roles thing. I have to ask. Do you think gender roles came as an enforcement or as a natural way men and women worked? That we created gender roles or gender roles is what men and women naturally gravitated to? I keep hearing about ending gender roles, and if you're a woman or a man wanting to go in to a field that is typically held by the opposite sex all while being capable of doing so, then go for it, however overall, the majority of the time, is that really an influence society made or has it always naturally been with us since we had any civilized society to the point gender roles weren't necessarily as requied 100%?
If you could try one thing as a member of the opposite sex, would you?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Often it is personal choices that contribute to it. Participating in crime? Aggression and fighting?
My comparison weighs up. The whole point is that there's often pressures and forces that cause people to make certain "decisions" (I quote that because it's not always really a free choice when there's so much influence involved or when you don't even realize you have a choice).
There absolutely is forces against women asking for more money. There is reasons why men and women "choose" careers and why those careers pay how they do. There is pressure on women to have children. Men want children too, you know. Why is it assumed that women take a huge hit career-wise to attend to household and child issues? Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this assumption.
However hard or easy the physical tasks of raising a family are is irrelevant. Family should come first before serving some company. We should encourage that. Mothers AND fathers should be involved as much as possible without the negative repercussions.
First world countries are, for the most part, not overpopulated nor contributing to global overpopulation.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Participation in violence is still not a personal choice to have a higher level of violence put against you. That's like saying because you take part in a heated discussion which is getting everyone angry that you're making a personal choice to have violence inflicted on you simply because it's a possible outcome.
Unless men were somehow being told by society that they should demand higher pay then I'm not sure how these forces can make two different outcomes like that. It could also be down to biological aspects, such as testosterone levels making you take more or less risks, which not accepting a job unless you have a higher pay is a risk to take of rejection. What influences are you talking about exactly here?
What reasons are there for men picking certain careers, same goes for women? Again, I'd say testosterone may have something to do with it, hence why more men are likely to go in to riskier careers aswell as more physical ones. Not sure what you mean by why those careers pay the way they do, though. If you could elaborate.
I'm not entirely sure where the pressure of women having children comes from. Maybe it's simply because I'm not a woman but as part of the society that apparently does this I haven't noticed it. Possibly because it's the norm for women to have children that it's expected? Which it's simple enough to just not follow those expectations.
Why is it expected for women to attend to the household and child issues? I'd suppose it's because on average men are more likely to work in harder and riskier jobs and more likely to be the bread winner and so spend more time at work and doing harder work on top of that as the woman so due to the man on average that is bringing in more money to provide which results in more work, it's understandable that the female would compensate by doing extra work at home. Ofcourse, same goes for men if the sexes are reversed.
Women get passed up for jobs and promotions over this. Meeeeeh. On one hand I can see that happening and think it's wrong. On the other I can understand it. Women can go on maternity leave and do so far more than men go on paternity leave if it's available. So essentially, by hiring a woman, they're taking a gamble for a certain period of time of them hiring someone who won't take that long pay-leave or someone who would. My view for that would be that maternity leave should either be made to go on for a far smaller period of time or it shouldn't be accepted at all, which would eliminate the whole issue of taking that gamble which the employer may have to pay for an employees personal life choices. That way that assumption would go away mostly if not entirely due to that gamble no longer being an issue. Same would go for paternity leave.
You say about how family should come first and it seems like you don't realize (I may be mistaken, so don't bite my head off over this) that a lot of the times work comes first so that the family comes first, if that makes sense. They need the money to provide for their family, you can't really have one without the other unless you're on some sort of government benefits.
I don't have an issue with people being mothers or fathers before anything else even if I think it's easier in comparisson to a career but I also think that people juggling family life and a career are at the risk of having their career effecting their family or their family effecting their career. You can have both if done properly, sometimes even do extremely well in both, but there are risks and troubles along the way.
Pssht, you say that but what about 'dem illegal aliens? THEY TOOK UR JERBZ!
--
SecretIdentity
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The point here is to examine the forces behind the choices and realize not all choices are made freely. You can explain away a situation by pointing out choices made but that's not good enough and it's often not fair, as I just showed you with the example of dead men. I could simply say more men die because of choices they make, that's all, end of discussion- but that's unfair, it's callous, and it doesn't truly examine or help solve the problem. Obviously we need to ask why men are making such choices, what pressures are involved and how can we help.
Your opinions here seem to come from a place of upholding the status quo. Try asking why things are how they are and if it's really right or good, or "not that bad", rather. For examples, ask why is it ok to punish people for having a family? Why is it normal or ok for men to spend so much time away from home or children? Could more people work from home? More flexible schedules? Pay people a decent wage? How can workplaces be more family-friendly? Less stressful? Allow more for personal life while not taking a heavy toll on finances or professional success? And so on. How can we help end discrimination? How do we stop holding ourselves and others back with these heavily ingrained gender roles? Those are all questions worth thinking about.
TERKERJERB!
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not really understanding your choices aren't freely made point. There isn't a visible bar against women making the choice to ask for a higher salary so I'm not sure how that ties in with your point about choices not being made freely. I wrote a ton out here but deleted it because I ended up rambling. I'll try be brief so I don't bombard you with a huge wall of text again.
^^^^Ha! Hahahahaha. After typing all this out I have to laugh at my failed attempt at being brief. I suck so hard. Lol. Sorry for this huge wall of text.
Men are more likely to take risks, right? From what I read, which has a lot to do with testosterone in terms of risk taking compared to men and women. I may be mistaken but that's the jist of what I've seen. Due to this, depending on a man's financial state and environment, he's either going to take risks lawfully or not so lawfully. So men that commit crime take those risks for opportunities where as men that don't need to are more likely to take risks in terms of how they gain opportunities (work, etc). Could that not then be due to biology and the whole testosterone thing? That men are generally more likely to take the risk for an opportunity just like a criminal is likely to take a risk for an opportunity they see?
Basically, what if the difference is primarily due to biology and not some bar society has made? Which would explain why men die taking unlawful risks just as they do make risks on their jobs? That it's in man's nature to take risks more than women and how they die is primarily due to other factors such as environment and so on? For example, I'm sure you're aware that men make the vast majority of workforce deaths. Are we to change that by seeing why men take those risks and lead them away from those jobs they want to do and quite frankly need done or do we focus on how to alter the environment they choose to be in so that risk of death is far less likely?
I'm not trying to uphold some sort of status quo, moreso asking if the status quo needs altered. I don't believe most men ask for higher pay, I may be wrong, just that more men than women do. So the status quo is that the majority isn't asking for higher pay, some do and some don't. I just don't think it's fair to say that it's an injustice against women for women not taking the initiative as much as men do for earning more money in this regard. As if to say because one person asked for an extra piece of candy and the other didn't that there's an injustice against that person that didn't recieve the extra candy even though they could of asked and recieved the same, if not more. If you want to encourage that person to ask for more candy then nobody in their right mind will take issue but I think it's understandable when people take issue with those people that didn't ask blaming everyone else for them not asking for the extra candy, if you get what I mean?
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You ask me to ask why is it ok to punish a person for having a family but I don't think that's what's happening. A lot of people forget, not directly aiming this at you but you may think the same, that employers are there for the employee to get money to sustain life when in reality the employer is there to work for the employer, the employee is an investment. When people suffer in their career because their personal family choice got in the way, that effects the employer's business and then the employee is not as much of an investment as the person without those issues. It's not so much punishment towards these people as much as it is ensuring bad investments aren't taken over more beneficial ones. It may be nice if that wasn't the case but the truth is that the employer is there for a reason and it isn't to ensure the employee's personal life is running smooth and easy, it's to get the job done.
As for why it's ok for men to spend so much time away from children? Honestly, it's necessary. Not for the man specifically to do it but someone has to bring home the bacon and women are happy for men to be the ones doing it in general. I remember hearing that a study said men value themselves and identify themselves on their careers? I may be mistaken but if that's the case then we'd have to look at why that is, and my guess is that it has a lot to do with the expectation of men to provide, one women uphold a lot (not all), that women would like a man who provides for them. So I would assume that and other factors is which why men value themselves on their careers which leads them to focus on their careers moreso than family which leads to women being in those positions of looking after the family. If that's to change then I think there'd need to be a massive change in women wanting a man to provide for them and shifting it to desiring a man who is around the kids far more, or atleast be an even amount between the two types. However I don't see that happening.
Side note. Did you see that recent article about one in four women being breadwinners now in the family? That it's effecting women negatively due to the expectations put on them due to it? I don't know how but I feel like that somehow ties in to this point.
Personally, I'm not too great with economics. So the rest I don't feel like I could field the questions. I'm pretty sure it isn't as simple as raising the wages of people and that making jobs more family friendly would differ extremely from job types. So overall I can't say I know enough on that aspect.
As for the gender roles thing. I have to ask. Do you think gender roles came as an enforcement or as a natural way men and women worked? That we created gender roles or gender roles is what men and women naturally gravitated to? I keep hearing about ending gender roles, and if you're a woman or a man wanting to go in to a field that is typically held by the opposite sex all while being capable of doing so, then go for it, however overall, the majority of the time, is that really an influence society made or has it always naturally been with us since we had any civilized society to the point gender roles weren't necessarily as requied 100%?
TOOKADOODADEWBS!