3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,085
You speak for yourself. This particular man has nothing to answer for in that area and gets upset to be lumped in with others who have perpetrated injustice.
"Why can't we hate men?"
- Thread starter pharphis
- Start date
You speak for yourself. This particular man has nothing to answer for in that area and gets upset to be lumped in with others who have perpetrated injustice.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
That isn't as implausible as you make it sound. It is often the case that higher positions are more managerial with higher hours, which many people aren't interested in even with the higher status or pay. I know many people who have found that advancement would mean more hours with lower pay per hour.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,641
But you wouldn't know that if you only looked at the statistics. You have to look deeper. Which was the point.
This is simply false. Women live longer than men, they earn more college degrees than men, they are incarcerated less than men, they die in workplace accidents far less then men. There are plenty of aspects of society where women are ahead of men.
How much?
You're guessing. How persuasive.
How do you know it doesn't explain all of the imbalance? Maybe it doesn't, but you're still guessing. You've dismissed my argument based on your feelings alone. And I'm the one without a point? Hardly.
Way to miss the point about apex fallacy.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,641
This is a common misconception due to certain cinematic liberties. You aren't frozen in carbonite. You are baked in it. And like pickling in formaldehyde, it's intended to preserve the corpse, not keep the subject alive.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,641
Life is made of tradeoffs. You can't get the highest salary levels without giving something else up, be it leisure time, time with children, lower stress, etc. Not everyone makes the choice to give these things up. We should not be surprised if there is a gender difference in the rate of who decides to.
No. The point of the comparison is that gender is DIFFERENT than class. Multimillionaire men and multimillionaire women have more interests in common than multimillionaire men and poor men. You have not disputed this.
I've known (and worked for) quite a few self-made multimillionaires (Times' rich list folk) and two billionaires and they have way more leisure time, more time away from the office and a lot less stress than their underlings.
From my experience of corporate life is that the higher one gets the less one has to "give up" and the perks get substantially better.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
At least part of the issue is that parents, both mothers and fathers, are often too concerned with ensuring that their sons like and do "boy" things as opposed to encouraging and supporting their child's interest in whatever catches their fancy. I read a Twitter thread recently from someone who was doing facepainting at a fair or something, had a little boy approach them wanting a blue butterfly painted on his face, but was shouted down by his MOTHER not wanting her son to have something girly. The poor boy was forced instead to pick a skull and crossbones, and when the facepainter tried to add a small blue butterfly to the painting they were stopped, again, by the mother. Part of the issue is that while it's now perfectly okay for girls to like so-called "boy stuff", aka male superheroes and the like, in addition to their girly stuff, it's not okay for boys to show an interest in the more girly stuff. This is where parenting is lacking in today's society; we teach girls it's okay to like anything, but the moment a boy shows interest in something even slightly feminine he's called out for it. Just because a boy shows interest in dolls or pretty clothes doesn't make him automatically gay or manifesting whatever visceral fear the parent has about his/her child as a result of showing interest in girly stuff; it just means he likely has a passing fancy for whatever pretty thing caught his interest.
If we can get parents to stop with this notion that boys have to like only boyish things, whereas girls can like whatever, a lot of the issue will be solved. In a weird way, we're now going in the opposite direction with children; girls have more freedom to like anything they want, while boys don't. Makes me glad my stepbrother and then sister-in-law didn't worry about stuff like that; my oldest nephew's favorite toy when he was a kid was a Barbie doll, but it was not by far the only toy he played with or showed interest in; there were plenty of boyish toys as well. But to get back to my point, it's likely this difference in treatment is a large part of why some boys have issues with how they treat the opposite sex when they get older; they're so ingrained with the notion that they have to "be a man, be tough, don't show emotion" that when it comes to treating a woman as an equal they can't make the connection stick in their minds. There may even be a correlation (not a cause, but a correlation nonetheless) between this attitude while being raised and the likelihood that the young man in question will commit some sort of sexual assault when he's older. Change the parenting style, however, and it is possible that at least some of the problem will be solved.
Did you know them while they were in the process of becoming multimillionaires? I suspect they had substantially less leisure time during that phase of their lives.
One of them yes, I remember skipping through Leicester square holding hands with her and my fellow director after we'd floated the company on AIM - we may have been a little bit drunk and hyper at that moment - she'd just pocketed personally about 12 million. She employed others to do the work whilst she had a great lifestyle. (Good for her by the way.)
I've been on several boards, exec and non-exec and been a non-board director at several other companies. In all those companies the "top executives" had to "give up" the least and worked hell of a lot less than their middle managers - never mind those on the "factory floor". And the stress isn't a matter either, an employee working say minimum wage stresses a lot more that the top-execs, for the employee losing that job could be the difference in being able to eat the next month or not.
More women not being top execs is I suspect more down to having to pass through the ranks that actually work hell of a lot before you get to the gravy train.
Well, it's an empirical question.
For instance:
http://time.com/4076563/ceos-productivity/
Personally when I started my business I worked 60 hours/week or more for the first 6 years or so, and didn't have a single day off for the first 3 years. Now I have a lot of leisure time (I work only around 35 hours/week now, and I just took two months off and will probably take another holiday later this year), partly because, as you say, I have hired other people to do the work.
For instance:
http://time.com/4076563/ceos-productivity/
Personally when I started my business I worked 60 hours/week or more for the first 6 years or so, and didn't have a single day off for the first 3 years. Now I have a lot of leisure time (I work only around 35 hours/week now, and I just took two months off and will probably take another holiday later this year), partly because, as you say, I have hired other people to do the work.
It's not "guessing" when the group that's badly underrepresented also has a history of being treated as second-class citizens and have just found their "voice" to speak out about pervasive sexual assault that's been going on forever. At that point, it's idiocy to suggest the rampant misogyny on display in this country isn't a huge part of the problem of underrepresentation of women in all the power structures in this country. At that point, you're just victim shaming.
So you can bury your head in the sand and claim it's just because women don't go into politics, or look at who's actually president, and the number of people who support the pussygrabber, and realize the culture needs to change. And by "culture", I mean men. Do you think the #metoo movement is somehow their fault?
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
If there are not enough women running for office, then yes, you're going to see women voting for men simply because there are no other choices.
Saying that "well, women aren't elected because women aren't running" is an evasion, an attempt to isolate the problem, treat it as if it were happening in a vacuum, rather than understand the complex cultural problems that actively discourage women from running for office, that penalize and punish those who do in ways subtle and not-so-subtle, and the fact that until very recently women in politics were not taken seriously by the the overwhelming majority of the system, were treated as outsiders and ignored.
Within living memory, there was a time when the political population of this country were almost exclusively straight cisgendered Christian white men. Women and minority politicians were notable for their rarity. To say that that's because women and minorities were just not running for office is to engage in ignorance of history bordering on revisionism. It ignores the constant, ongoing efforts made by the mainstream political machine to prevent women and minorities from running for office. It ignored decades of attempts to suppress minority votes through restrictive and discriminatory laws and regulations, and practices such as gerrymandering or closing of polling stations in minority communities. It also ignores illegal attempts to suppress women and minority voters with disinformation regarding polling and regulations, voter intimidation tactics, and outright harassment and assault.
Candidates who were women or minorities, or who openly supported women and minorities, could face similar tactics. And those who persevered and pushed through all the legal roadblocks could find themselves also the subject of disinformation and harassment campaigns. If they still managed to persevere, they could be assaulted or outright murdered by police. Look at what happened to the Black Panther Party, for one example of many.
And all these things exist to this day. Maybe not to the same extremes as they did in the 1950s and 1960s, but are still very much a problem. Gerrymandering is commonplace. Many states are still closing polling stations in minority districts, restricting hours at polling stations, and adding additional restrictions such as voter ID laws designed to suppress minority voters. The now-conservative-leaning US Supreme Court just ruled in favour of a state that is in the process of purging voter roles of minority voters. In the last presidential election, GOP campaign organizations and supporters sent out mailers and phone calls to minority voters with erroneous information on polling locations and times. Police showed up at polling locations to intimidate minority voters under the pretense of "preventing disturbances".
Minority politicians are still routinely harassed and dismissed by their colleagues. Many receive death threats. Women in politics are still subject to sexual harassment.
The barriers to entry for women and minorities in American politics are huge, in some cases nearly insurmountable. And they're going to remain that way for the near future. Parties in power are always reluctant to give up that power, and the current administration has made it quite clear the depths to which they will sink to preserve their power against any challenges.
But those who work in such fields are as likely as their male colleagues to seek advancement and high salaries, except perhaps you believe they shouldn't be recruited because they just go off and have babies instead of working long hours.
If anyone wanted to know why some women seek the right to hate men, your Neanderthal post would be an explanation, though not a justification, for that attitude.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Perhaps that's true for more women than men, but I doubt the difference is as significant as the current disparity makes it seem.
One of the biggest problems is that women are much less likely to be promoted to higher management positions than men due to the perception that they will not work as many hours, or make the same effort, as men. I've literally heard managers say that they would not want to promote women to certain positions because "women are likely to get pregnant and need to take too much time off, and we need someone more likely to stick around for the long term".
Part of the problem is the increasingly anachronistic way that businesses in this country are structured and run, and the unreasonable demands placed upon workers, and even managers. But sexism is still just as potent a force, and is a large part of women are so grossly underrepresented in the upper echelons of business life.
Your anecdote seems to support what I said?
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
I don't perceive its relevance. And I am sharp-eyed enough to notice that you don't state that
Multimillionaire men and multimillionaire women have more in common than multimillionaire men and poor men
but that Multimillionaire men and multimillionaire women have more interests in common than multimillionaire men and poor men
Gender is not solely an "interest", as it entails significant specific physical attributes, while perhaps social class is more an "interest". At all events the inclusion of that word renders your comparison incomprehensible.Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Well, forced quotas can't be the answer. I think Sabrina was onto something with her last post. The next generations need to be educated to see certain things differently. Once somebody's well into adulthood with a particular set of beliefs and paradigms, trying to change those paradigms is frequently a lost cause.
Here's a VERY minor example. My dad still calls things "unladylike" sometimes. I've told him it kind of pisses me off when he says it to me, and he can't even wrap his mind around why that might be. I try and explain, but he doesn't get it. He looks at me like I'm speaking an alien language. He's got no issues with women, he's just old-fashioned as hell. And he's in his seventies. There's no point in digging my heels in about it.
However, should I ever have a son of my own, I would not encourage him to conceptualize "unladylike" as a thing. "Unmanly" either. These are, in my opinion, loaded and antiquated judgments. They don't have much place in a more equal world.
I hope that made sense. I've got a fever.
Here's a VERY minor example. My dad still calls things "unladylike" sometimes. I've told him it kind of pisses me off when he says it to me, and he can't even wrap his mind around why that might be. I try and explain, but he doesn't get it. He looks at me like I'm speaking an alien language. He's got no issues with women, he's just old-fashioned as hell. And he's in his seventies. There's no point in digging my heels in about it.
However, should I ever have a son of my own, I would not encourage him to conceptualize "unladylike" as a thing. "Unmanly" either. These are, in my opinion, loaded and antiquated judgments. They don't have much place in a more equal world.
I hope that made sense. I've got a fever.
Last edited: