• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

3point14 said:
Your points about the relative odds are just pointless. Women have all the same odds of randomly being away from work as do men and, in addition there is the increased risk that they will fall pregnant and have to not be at work.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Men have a higher chance of dying, for instance, over any given period. And that will probably be at least as disruptive to their employer as an employee's absence due to pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/
(Numbers for the US, but the pattern is similar globably)
At birth there are 105 boys for every 100 girls. There would be even more, but fetal death is 7% higher for boys than girls. The mortality gap widens immediately; by their first birthday, 21% more boys than girls die. Excess male demise continues throughout life, such that by age 65 years or older, there are 75 men for every 100 women.
Click to expand...

Some of that gender disparity is due to men taking riskier jobs, and the women in those jobs will likely have the same risk of job-related death or injury, but that's not the only contributor to the increased risk.

The average man is still much less likely to die/unit time than the average woman is to become pregnant/unit time, but I just thought it worth pointing out that, contrary to what you said, the risks of injury, illness, and death aren't constant across gender.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm confused. Is she working for the three moths, or are the three moths giving birth? :butterfly :confused:
Click to expand...
Can't speak for other countries but in NZ women get 22 weeks fully paid leave or whatever amount of weeks that they decide lower

Changing in 2 years to 6 months paid parental leave or whatever they decide lower
 
cullennz said:
Can't speak for other countries but in NZ women get 22 weeks fully paid leave or whatever amount of weeks that they decide lower

Changing in 2 years to 6 months paid parental leave or whatever they decide lower
Click to expand...

And besides, moths don't give birth, they lay eggs.
 
Roboramma said:
That's not true. Men have a higher chance of dying, for instance, over any given period. And that will probably be at least as disruptive to their employer as an employee's absence due to pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/
(Numbers for the US, but the pattern is similar globably)


Some of that gender disparity is due to men taking riskier jobs, and the women in those jobs will likely have the same risk of job-related death or injury, but that's not the only contributor to the increased risk.

The average man is still much less likely to die/unit time than the average woman is to become pregnant/unit time, but I just thought it worth pointing out that, contrary to what you said, the risks of injury, illness, and death aren't constant across gender.
Click to expand...


True. The risk of falling pregnant applies to one gender and one gender only. And, while I can't prove it, I would bet a reasonable amount of money that, while men are slightly more likely to be ill or injured, overall, women spend more time out of the workplace due to pregnancy or childcare issues.

Please note, I am simply stating how things are, not that the current state is correct and not that nothing can be done, simply that, certainly in my experience, and probably overall, women are absent more often.

I think, if we are to have a reasonable discussion about equality in the workplace and redressing anything that is unbalanced, it's really, really foolish to start with the absolute lie that being pregnant, giving birth, and looking after that child for the early part of their life is easy. It's not. Anyone that says it is easy and non-disruptive just hasn't done it.

Add into this the fact that the risk only applies to women and that means we need to have a serious discussion about what to do with it. What it does not mean is that we should pretend that having a kid is a non event in terms of impact on work.
 
Roboramma said:
And besides, moths don't give birth, they lay eggs.
Click to expand...
As I said I don't particularly care

I don't own a small business

But to pretend men and women (yes and women) hiring people in small businesses don't think about this is laughable
 
Ziggurat said:
I know it’s true. But quotas won’t help you achieve your partisan goal.
Click to expand...

I'm registered independent, but that said, why should it matter whether gender parity affects partisan goals? Isn't parity good in and of itself?
 
d4m10n said:
I'm registered independent, but that said, why should it matter whether gender parity affects partisan goals? Isn't parity good in and of itself?
Click to expand...
Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of chosen long working hours?

Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of risk of death or injury?

Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of time away from family?

Or just parity of pay?
 
d4m10n said:
I'm registered independent, but that said, why should it matter whether gender parity affects partisan goals?
Click to expand...

If you're pursuing gender parity for the sake of partisan goals, expect partisan resistance.

Isn't parity good in and of itself?
Click to expand...

Why would it be? If you believe it's axiomatically good, well, there is no counter-argument against that, but there's also no argument for it. If you don't believe it's axiomatically good, then what (other than partisan advantage) makes it good?
 
Ziggurat said:
Why would it be?
Click to expand...

Because people bring their personal experiences to the table, and legislators are people who make judgement calls based in part upon their own experiences.

Just to take one obvious example, Senator Duckworth brings the experience of trying to balance an intense career schedule with the demands of early motherhood, which have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Okay, one more example. Senator McCain stood up against torture when most of the GOP wouldn't.
 
cullennz said:
Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of chosen long working hours?

Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of risk of death or injury?

Parity of pay and the equivalent parity of time away from family?

Or just parity of pay?
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about pay, but I do think all Senators should be paid the same.
 
d4m10n said:
Because people bring their personal experiences to the table, and legislators are people who make judgement calls based in part upon their own experiences.
Click to expand...

And this requires parity... why?

And what other forms of parity should we pursue? Should we try to make sure a certain percentage of Congress is Catholic? Mormon? Homeschooled? Truck drivers? Cashiers? Drug dealers?

Why not simply let voters decide what personal experience they value in the politicians they elect?
 
3point14 said:
Because it disrupts the business. No matter how well arranged, no matter how well organised, a key figure being out of the business for, what? At a minimum, say, three months, is going to impact on the business.

I realise it's not a happy thought or a useful one , but it is a fact.
Click to expand...


It is also not nearly as common an occurrence as opponents of female managers tend to want to portray it as being. They'd have us believe that such a situation is inevitable, despite the fact that the higher up the management ladder you go, the less likely the women there are to take time out to have children.

And with modern technology it is not nearly as much of an impediment to doing business as those same folks would have us believe. But too much of American business is stuck in a 19th century office model, and are incapable of understanding the flexibility available to them.
 
d4m10n said:
You think women are given the chance to vote for other women half the time? 25% maybe?
Click to expand...

If fewer women are running for office, then artificially inflating their success rates with quotas is likely to lower the quality. Is that the solution you want?

And why does it only matter who women are given the chance to vote for?

Plus, of course, you didn't answer the question of why parity was required, or what other forms of parity we should pursue.
 
Ziggurat said:
Plus, of course, you didn't answer the question of why parity was required...
Click to expand...

I already did, upthread.

Ziggurat said:
If fewer women are running for office, then artificially inflating their success rates with quotas is likely to lower the quality.
Click to expand...

Dude, have you seen the Senate?

Ziggurat said:
And why does it only matter who women are given the chance to vote for?
Click to expand...

Any group that comprises more than half of the voters should be well-represented (IMO) if you want to lay claim to the idea of representative democracy.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
It is also not nearly as common an occurrence as opponents of female managers tend to want to portray it as being. They'd have us believe that such a situation is inevitable, despite the fact that the higher up the management ladder you go, the less likely the women there are to take time out to have children.

And with modern technology it is not nearly as much of an impediment to doing business as those same folks would have us believe. But too much of American business is stuck in a 19th century office model, and are incapable of understanding the flexibility available to them.
Click to expand...


But it is still an impediment. All of this desperately pretending it has no effect is not ever going to assist in moving towards a more equitable situation.

Pretending that nine months of pregnancy, the massive physical an hormonal changes that come with it, the trauma of giving birth, the post-natal risks of physical and psychological issues that come with having just given birth while at the same time tending for a helpless individual is all just a walk in the park and won't ever effect someone's work is just total fantasyland. And, again, I would like to point out, is an absolute smack in the face to pregnant ladies and new mothers everywhere.

The search for a more equitable society really cannot begin with a tissue of lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom