lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Women are more employed RIGHT NOW...because companies are cutting back payrolls, and traditionally, women make less than their male counterparts.
Oh, I saw the lead up debate about education, and how boys and girls learn differently, and how girls are supposedly better at certain tasks, and boys are supposedly better at certain other tasks.
It's all bull****. What matters the most, more than anything else, is personal drive, and discipline. There is no amount of state meddling, or education reform, or anything else, that is ever going to change this, or even slightly alter it in any way. Some people are going to succeed, male or female, and the reason why...is going to be personal drive, and discipline.
So, I chose to address the more immediate, in our face numbers...that, right now, more women are employed than men, and more women are BEING employed in higher positions, than men. Sure, some of this is due to maybe having more elligible women than men for those positions. But a lot of it, when it came to layoffs, in large companies, anyway, had to do with numbers...and if Sally does the same work for 10K a year less than Frank...who you gonna keep? A lot of this is done by HR depts who have never even set foot inside of the office their layoffs would affect.
No, it simply addresses the here and now.Well your little one-liner screams that you don't understand many things that have happened.
It took a nose dive.1) what happened o the economy
Because we were, and continue, to run on debt, which is to say, future earnings...and the biggest accumulator of debt in the US is the housing industry...this many other industries were involved, under the guise of securities, which is just double speak, because they were anything but secure, but no one knew, because the rating agencies gave them all clean bills of health, allowing the banks, who KNEW they were bad, to pass them along. And when one card fell, it started a chain reaction that brought down the house. More or less.2) why
By continuing to struggle and fail, or by petitioning uncle sam for a big sweaty wad of money. The former made cutbacks on payroll and other expenses, while the latter got nice bonuses.3) how failing and struggling businesses responded
Because when people started foreclosing on houses they couldn't afford, those "securities" became toxic, over night, wherein money "vanished" because it was never there to begin with, which hurt the stock market, which hurt businesses, which causes layoffs, which caused more foreclosures, which hurt more and more and more. Oh, and some failed and struggle because they were too big for their own good...but it's OK, they got a bail out.4) what made them fail or struggle to begin with
Just about everywhere.5) the sectors that were affected
Statistically, men get paid more than women counterparts, ergo, they are a higher expense. Now, included in this is the fact that there are more senior management and CEOs that are male than female, which would cause you think my brief assessment about more women employed is wrong...senior management and CEOs make up a very small minority of the work force. Mid managers and below make up the majority, which is what I am talking about...majorities.6) how men and women are situated differently in regard to the effect the collapse(s) have had on them
Fine. More women go into nursing than men, and since there are more nurses than doctors, THAT'S why there are more women employed than men. But I don't care about any one specific field, I care about the picture as a whole.7) education and how it varies (everthing from learning patterns to degree choices)
And so forth.and so on.
Pay EquityYou actually opted for the one thing that has no bearing on this at all: the false notion that women are paid less and thus were the ones kept around because it saved money.
Male
Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME
A 5 second google search yielded contradictory information to what you assert here.
And these were the people who's pay was most closely scrutinized. So, thanks for backing me up, here.Reality: When some companies have pancaked it has been to decrease surpurfluous numbers and restructure the entire bsuiness structure to become more streamline and fluid. . . which didn't just affect the 'little guy on the bottom' - it affected managers, supervisors and even CEOs and executives . . . men and women alike and the higher up you go - the more men were affected in many sectors of employment.
Those staff did not get raises, they got more hours. And if they were salaried, they got nothing...MAYBE another grand on the bonus, that year. Ask me how I know. If my opinion were true, this still would have happened. I'm wondering what the logic was that led you to this conclusion? It's simply...you restructure to cut out all shrink, or waste, pinch pennies, and cut some corners. You look at who you need, and who you don't. If you are getting the same amount of work from both employee A and employee B, but employee B makes 10% more, employee B is the one you're gonna cut, if you can afford to lose them. It ain't quantum physics.Pay? Most companies reduced overall numbers and reworked their business structure which put a heavier workload on the remaining staff - and thus those staff actually, on average, received and increase in pay or benefits. . . because the ywere doing more work. Now - they weren't paid as much as two were paid before . . . but on average it was an increase. Now - if your opinion was true: this wouldn't have happened.
I never said it was boys vs girls. I merely offered ONE reason why female employment is higher now, than male, while less females were laid off than their male counterparts, and why MORE females are being rehired. And I'll repeat, from the previous post, just to be thorough, that on the rehire subject, or just hiring in general...skill sets and qualification play the most important role...BUT, pay is there as well. As an employer, I'm always going to hire the best, cheapest person I can find. And typically, depending on the area of business...that's women. Now, if you want to go into the reasons WHY women make less money, that's an entirely different thread, and could go on and on and on.and on and on . . . i could rattle on all night and pick your statement apart: I think you get the point: there's far more to what happend and how businesses responded that 'boys vs girls'
Next time, before you post, don't make assumptions.
Not as so as it once was, but this involves those who don't. Who are career minded, and still lag behind.
Because with their fickle nature, there is the chance that "Career Girl" turns into "Housewife and Mother to Be" almost overnight. How many guys do you know who fall in love, quit their jobs, and become house-husbands? I don't know too many. However, I do know more than a few career-minded ladies who have done exactly that.... They fall in love with Mr. Perfect and suddenly decide that he's more interesting than that pesky career.
A friend of mine quit his job to stay home when they had a baby because her job had insurance. That lasted about 6 months until he was going bonkers. Men are not made for that role.
As if women who stay at home don't go bonkers.
Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.
Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.
Ironically: we talked about this idea in anthropology class yesterday. We were dividing this view up from two views: idealism (which centers aroudn beliefs and feelings a culture might have regarding something) and materialism (which focuses on the practical physical effects and reasons for holding views in society)
to learn about these things we're learning about an island in Micronesia called Pulop - traditional man/woman distribution there in regard to the classic beliefs based on gender. . . but without negativity - it's just 'practical this way'
in a materialistic view: why do men hunt and get in boats to fish? Why do women stay on the island and farm the taro (foodsource)?
For one: the woman have interruptable work - the taro fields are close to home - they can have children of all ages with them if needed and nurse/be pregnant without risking newborn/pregnant woman. However: women hunt as well - they hunt for foods on the island (birds, dog, etc) and from the beach (like octopus). But men don't harvest or care for the taro or the young children - they fish, build boats and are gone a lot.
Their natural predators are all i nthe ocean - thus - ocean work is dangerous work, women don't do that.
So why is there a difference if all work together and are seen as equals on an intellectual level? The men don't think leser of the women - the women don't think they're downtrodden or treated poorly and even hold some types of (what we would see) of influence over the men.
To explain their differences:
Idealism woudl revolve around feelings and thought processes and doesn't apply to the pullops because they don't think it through - it just 'made sense in a way that enables their lifstyle to continue" . . women are weaker - can't fish (but that's not true, they catch octopus and climb trees to care for the taro, etc - so weaker? no. They could easily wrangle a shark for food if they wanted). So it's not thoughs about the women that are present - idealism doesn't explain it (but idealism explains american views - all about our feelings)
Materialistically speaking: What it comes down to is procreation: men - in a short period of time - one man could father many children with different wives
Women can only have one (maybe two) children in a 9 month period . . . if a man got around enough he could father 25 in that same amount of time - or more.
So men: are more expendible. The future of the islanders won't end if a man or 5 men die at sea because of a shark attack.
But if one pregnant woman dies with a child - who will care for her existing children? If she's nursing - it makes the likelihood of that chlid not being nourished and her unborn child dying far more dangerous, likely and frightening.
Thus: older women do join the men on the hunt and going island to island - the younger ones of child bearing age do not. . . becaues they're more expendable.
to me: being thought of as expendable human - is ****ty . . . . you guys can keep it.
Good informative post EXCEPT the last line LOL
I don't know....I don't think I'm a hunter or a gatherer...I'm a builder. I'm the cave man diging out the irrigation ditches, setting up the sweat lodge and/or shaping the cave opening.Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.
Auntie.... Whether it's Idealism or Materialism, the outcome should be the same. It's about Right and Wrong more than anything else. The two "stay at home dad" types that I know personally are about the most effeminate and worthless bums I've ever met. They are more feminine than masculine, and always have been (I've known them since college). Interestingly enough, one of them ended up marrying a very tomboyish woman. She had the looks and body to be a Playmate at age 18, but you would never have known it. About as unfeminine a woman as I have ever met. It works for them (mostly) in a very twisted way, but I personally see it as a great example of why that sort of thing should not be the standard operating model for humanity.
No - in many ways they violate your view of 'what's right for the gender' so don't think they're a patriarchy adn oppose equality.
Example: the clans (families) get their lineage from teh mother. In the US we get our lineage from our fathers (when we marry we take our husband's name). . .For them: the husband marries *into* the clan and moves *into* the wife's home (which is also her mother's home, etc). . . women hold the family together: men do not. IN this way it's exact opposite of what you'd like to see in a nation.
So you see: in some ways the outcome seems the same (men go hunt - women stay at home with kids) but it is not the same. Of course you dont' realize that because of your own naive realism and ethnocentrism and prejudice.
The Pulops have difference for the genders - but none of it is negative. It is all positive towards furthering their existance. You know: they have a school - they're all taught to read/write, are engaged in their politics (which is tribal and interconnected with neighboring islands) . . .
But you: you see women AS being lesser and unworthy of involvement in community and goverment (you don't believe we should have the right to vote). That's not my faulty idealistic interpretation of your views: that is your view - that is your thought process.
It's amazing, I think - in what I've learned abotu some other cultures already: that they can survive giving equality that we lack in the US but they still live what we might see as 'primitive' lifestyles. I can't imagine what they'd teach you about life and love if you were there.
You think you have it all figured out and you definitely do not.
Well that's the fault of statistical analysis - it doesn't ring true for every field and it doesn't account for other factors: it just summarizes and reports (sort of)
I don't think you'll find *every* single female doctor being paid less than *every* single male doctor - what you might find are the fields that men/women go into: there are numerous ways to 'be' a doctor: family practitioner, surgeon (which breaks down into specialties), private practice (nonsurgical), and group practice (where multiple doctors join together rather than a sole proprietorship) and maxiliofacial . . . and on and on and on.
See: statistics don't break it down - nor do they take into account region, years on the job.
I think - for those statistics to be more reliable - they must be much more detailed to the umph and exhausting degree. Right now: I don't think ti tells us anything but furthers false assumptions.
No, not lesser, Auntie.... DIFFERENT. The problem is that our modern society doesn't allow for DIFFERENCE anymore. Everyone and everything has to be not just Equal but THE SAME. .
Who benefits the most from this? Think about it, what group of people did not benefit in society prior to men being pushed down? Hint: It's not about gender.
Reason for why the Pulopese and their way of living isn't applicable to the US: they're subsistence only. We're not - we're an economically driven society. We're not bound by our genders or our natural 'functions' in relation to genders as much as other cultures might be - because in our society if you have enough money: you can pay someone else to farm for you, harvest for you, hunt for you, care for your children . . and so forth.
Now - in the US: for a woman to be a stay at home mom for young children the husband must make a considerable income. Or the wife has to have a solid enough of a career to afford to care for everyone else. Money is the driving factor. . . and for others both must work - and this barely covers all the bills including the cost of childcare.
Yet in other cultures (like Japanese): the notion of a woman being a stay at home mom is a lazy rich luxury that they do not encourage or support.
what? I was an E-3 and my wife was a SAHM and we covered all the bills just fine, even managed to put a bit along the side.
I tend to suspect that for many (not all) the "we both have to work in order to make it" is really "we both have to work in order to sustain a higher lifestyle".
which is part of why that nation is soon to die. something like half of Japanese women have checked out of the kid-making business all-together,and the other half aren't exactly making up for the loss.
I don't know....I don't think I'm a hunter or a gatherer...I'm a builder. I'm the cave man diging out the irrigation ditches, setting up the sweat lodge and/or shaping the cave opening.
You are SO full of crap.
YOU are the one who wants everything and everyone to be the same. YOU are the one who stomps your feet about traditional gender roles being the one and only acceptable ones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?