|
On January 14 2014 00:54 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 00:23 L1ghtning wrote:On January 13 2014 10:48 Djzapz wrote:On January 13 2014 10:30 L1ghtning wrote:On January 12 2014 13:14 Djzapz wrote:
Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues. Can you name me an example in a western country where women have less rights than men? I can't. However, I could name a few examples where the opposite is true. They have equal rights on paper. In practice they're still discriminated against and oftentimes are paid less for the same work, among other things. I can also name examples where men are discriminated against, namely when children are involved, and that's a problem too. The problem has nothing to do with the laws, it's all about the social problems and gender discrimination that still exist to a varying extent in some parts of society. Denying their existence is ridiculous. That said, I'm also the kind of guy who sighs at almost everything I hear from feminists because they're doing fucking everything wrong. At this point, the ones who have a voice in the media and online are batshit crazy. And the women who fight against discrimination can't get a voice amid the sea of bullshit. The pay gap is a myth that has been proven false many times. The problem is that feminists keeps bringing up studies where crucial factors hasn't been accounted for. Of course men makes more money on average. That's because we work longer hours, are less likely to take a break from work, we're better educated, and because we are more likely to pick the high wage occupations. That's just a few of the factors. Feminists acts like these factors doesn't exist when they conduct their studies. I made a good comparison earlier, with cheap chinese labour replacing western labour, where I showed that businessmen can't afford to discriminate. Businesses are only interested in money, and if women were cheaper than men, the salaries of men would have to be pushed down, or they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Once again, this is simple supply and demand. You can't even name a valid example of where women are discriminated against. I'm in class and I think you're very biased so I don't intend to reason with you too long. That said, I know many employers who don't hire women because they get pregnant. My cousin is a partner at an engineering firm. His brother's wife works there, and she was lined up for a partnership with the firm. She lost it when she get knocked up. Supply and demand is great if you assume it to be right like the dumb sheeple you appear to be, but the free market left to its own devices is filth. As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it. As for the income thing, I know that. Lastly, your blind faith in the market and capitalism is laughable and despicable. And yes, feminism did play a huge role in getting women equal rights (at least on paper). You say it's highly debatable, but women taking to the streets did change the world. It's a direct result. It could have happened another way but history is not written in 'if's'. You can't just dismiss historical facts just because they're compatible with your bullshit ideology. PS: Again, I'm highly critical of feminism most of the time, but I firmly believe that you have a biased, unreasonable position. It's completely irrelevant if the ppl who fought for equal rights called themselves feminists or women, or whatever. Feminism has to prove that they're relevant today. What other feminists did or didn't do years ago doesn't really matter.
About your acquaintance who lost a job opportunity for getting pregnant.
You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story". This shows a lack of source critique on your part. Don't accuse others of being biased when you can't even back up the claim, especially not when you're biased yourself. If you represent the unbiased middle ground, I'm clearly wasting my time here.
If I were to speculate about the case...
Well, firstly, if your portrayal of what happened is accurate, they were clearly going to hire her when she wasn't pregnant. In other words, they weren't discriminating against her at that point. However, her getting pregnant made them change their mind. Why? Because they don't like pregnant women? No, because they were convinced that it would hurt her performance. They must have been thinking this, because if they didn't, it would contradict your statement about the job being pretty much hers. I mean, if the job was pretty much hers, and her pregnancy wouldn't impact her performance, she would have ended up with the job. And yet she didn't.
This is not fair, but it's not discrimination, it's just a good example of the inequalities in our biology. You might think that a pregnancy wouldn't impact her work that much, but clearly from their perspective, there must have been some obstacle, possibly something that we can't see with the limited information we have at our disposal.
As for your denial that there are social problems that make women's lives harder in the plethora of social problems which fuck with everybody, I'm forced to assume that you're disingenuous too. There's still social and cultural prejudice existing in varying degrees even in our countries which prevent (SOME) women from doing what they want, or discourages them from doing it.
Yes, cultural/social prejudice exists, but it's hardly something that relates to women only. I'm all for refining and possibly expanding the justice system though, which I've also said earlier on in the thread. Discrimination cases can only be settled in court, and that's where the focus should be.
Anyway, you should really consider cleaning up your tone. Throwing insults around (mostly without basis or explanation) doesn't really put you in a good light.
|
On January 14 2014 06:35 L1ghtning wrote:
You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story".
That kind of crap is so annoying when arguing with people like you on forums where anyone can say anything. That's why I'm always quite pessimistic when I engage in online arguments. That story was intended as an example but it also serves a dual purpose. Your rhetoric seems to deny the very existence of problems. By bringing up an example of something which is known to be reasonably common, I show that there's work to do in some parts of the private sector, thus invalidating your position which seems to be about how such problems don't happen.
Don't accuse others of being biased when you can't even back up the claim, especially not when you're biased yourself. If you represent the unbiased middle ground, I'm clearly wasting my time here.
I'm a fucking guy using data points...
Well, firstly, if your portrayal of what happened is accurate, they were clearly going to hire her when she wasn't pregnant. In other words, they weren't discriminating against her at that point. However, her getting pregnant made them change their mind. Why? Because they don't like pregnant women? No, because they were convinced that it would hurt her performance. They must have been thinking this, because if they didn't, it would contradict your statement about the job being pretty much hers. I mean, if the job was pretty much hers, and her pregnancy wouldn't impact her performance, she would have ended up with the job. And yet she didn't.
We can talk about the specific occurrence but you yourself would be the first to say that it's irrelevant. My point is that such corporate behavior is not uncommon.
I have two cousins, both partners at engineering firms. One of them works in Montreal, for the same company as the other cousin's wife. He's on the partner's board where they decide who becomes a partner for the firm. She had it, and when she got pregnant, my cousin was sitting on the board where they decided not to give her the partnership on the basis that she's pregnant.
From your immoral supply and demand standpoint, this is perfectly fine. Us civilized people know that it's a terrible fucking thing to do, and it's also illegal, much like firing pregnant women on the assumption that they might not be able to perform as much after having a kid. According to the law of the jungle, it's perfectly fine. It's also fine to hire the kid when it'll be 12 year old and get the poor thing to clean heavy machinery 16 hours a day. Fortunately, the world is no longer fully dependent on what the market wants. (Although we could argue that the market wants to step the fuck up and be decent for once).
Sadly, since the process of naming partners is largely informal, she has no recourse, and she's fucked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This is not fair, but it's not discrimination, it's just a good example of the inequalities in our biology. You might think that a pregnancy wouldn't impact her work that much, but clearly from their perspective, there must have been some obstacle, possibly something that we can't see with the limited information we have at our disposal.
You're willing to accept another man's nebulous perspective as evidence that there was a founded real problem that was legitimately solvable by giving a partnership to somebody else. Given that engineering is a male-dominated field, the fact that you outright deny the legitimacy of this whole ordeal is ridiculous. It wasn't that long ago that women were nearly completely shut out. Your denial that part of this culture could still exist is laughable.
Yes, cultural/social prejudice exists, but it's hardly something that relates to women only. I'm all for refining and possibly expanding the justice system though, which I've also said earlier on in the thread. Discrimination cases can only be settled in court, and that's where the focus should be.
There are groups fighting against all kinds of cultural and social prejudice and such social and political problems are solved in large part by lobbying. The judiciary system operates according to formal laws which are written by politicians with some limited but very real input by the people. There's also an informal part where the culture affects judiciary decisions because whether we like it or not, supposedly "neutral" judges are just like us a product of our society. As such, groups like the feminists and the capitalists and the socialists or the gay rights activists or the people who lobby for giving the English language a bigger place in Quebec, they can slowly but surely affect policy AND the application of the laws, as well as just people's general outlook on life and morality, equality, etc.
Many feminist movements are just militant angry bitches, pardon my French. Same with the Muslims, Christians, Atheists, the anglophones, the LGBT folks, or whoever the fuck. But others can still influence our customs and our traditions. And with some luck, maybe someday we won't have to put up with the people like yourself who seem to argue that it's fair to give men an advantage with higher odds of getting a partnership because the cooter allegedly comes with increased risks of being less productive (which clearly is affected in part by gender roles as dictated by tradition and in some cases assumed by government laws (fathers not getting paternity leave, for instance, can be seen as an advantage, but it can also screw with women's career ambition).
They say that part of running a business now is also to be a good citizen. A nation's wealth doesn't come only from its ability to plunder the wealth from the land and the workforce.
Anyway, you should really consider cleaning up your tone. Throwing insults around (mostly without basis or explanation) doesn't really put you in a good light.
Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults".
|
On January 14 2014 09:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:35 L1ghtning wrote:
You call yourself unbiased, and yet you're willing to condemn this firm solely based on a "he said she said story".
That kind of crap is so annoying when arguing with people like you on forums where anyone can say anything. That's why I'm always quite pessimistic when I engage in online arguments. That story was intended as an example but it also serves a dual purpose. Your rhetoric seems to deny the very existence of problems. By bringing up an example of something which is known to be reasonably common, I show that there's work to do in some parts of the private sector, thus invalidating your position which seems to be about how such problems don't happen.
I just showed that your example didn't prove anything. Just because you have an example that hints that there MIGHT be a problem, doesn't mean that there is a problem. It's up to feminism to prove that the problem is real, and they haven't been able to do that.
And no, you're wrong in saying that when you look at women's opportunities, if they're pregnant, they should get the same opportunities that they would get if they weren't pregnant. Well, unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards? If we have a system where women don't have to live up to the same standards of productivity and performance as her competitors, just because of a pregnancy, then it just makes businesses less likely to hire young women, because then they become a high risk category. Firing a woman for getting pregnant is wrong, simply because of job security, but not offering her a new job or a promotion is fine, if there is a valid concern about her performance. The business must have the right to get the best person for the job, all things considered, because if the playing fields aren't even, it becomes a gamble, and when you bring risk analyzation to the table, that's when the actual discrimination starts.
You may think that the government forcing this firm to give this person the job might be fair. But in reality, what would happen is that the firm, and other firms who heard about the story would be less likely to be interested in female applicants in the future, because of the risk factor. Why do you support something that would create more discrimination against young women? How would you battle this discrimation? Affirmative action?
You're willing to accept another man's nebulous perspective as evidence that there was a founded real problem that was legitimately solvable by giving a partnership to somebody else. Given that engineering is a male-dominated field, the fact that you outright deny the legitimacy of this whole ordeal is ridiculous. It wasn't that long ago that women were nearly completely shut out. Your denial that part of this culture could still exist is laughable.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy.
Women are not as willing to study engineering as men are. This is a fact in the western world. There was a norwegian documentary linked somewhere in this thread, that shed a lot of light on the subject of genders making different decisions, and the conclusion was that it most likely had to do with biology.
I'm going to give you an example too. In Sweden, our University level studies are a bit different. Rather than picking a major, we pick a program, and then the school has assigned a bunch of courses to that program. In some situations we have the choice to pick 1 out of several courses, but most of the time, it's decided for us.
So, there's a certain program here in Stockholm on the Royal Institute of Technology, and in english this program would probably be called Construction Engineering. This has always been a men's field, just like Computer Engineering, so in order to attract more women, they decided to rename it to "Construction Engineering and design". And guess what! The amount of female applicants more than doubled, immediately. The actual courses of the program didn't change at all. All that was changed was the program name. How do you explain that, other than by saying that men and women tends to look for different things when they pick a career?
|
Well then we fundamentally disagree AND you're willfully ignorant.
So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy.
I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance.
unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards?
How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly...
She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too.
You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion).
I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology.
Cheers.
+ Show Spoiler +I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base.
|
On January 14 2014 09:55 Djzapz wrote:
Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults".
I agree with you in this argument 100% and absolutely but as to this sentence, this is one of the more facepalm-worthy I have seen in Team Liquid discourse...come on man. You are better than that.
|
On January 15 2014 01:00 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 09:55 Djzapz wrote:
Curses and insults are my punctuation. I feel free to use them when I'm arguing against somebody who has even less credibility than I do. You can largely ignore the "insults". I agree with you in this argument 100% and absolutely but as to this sentence, this is one of the more facepalm-worthy I have seen in Team Liquid discourse...come on man. You are better than that.
<3
Sorry. Apparently I'm quite shit! My argumentation is like that because it's not in an academic of formal setting, so I let my language reflect my emotions instead of just trying to be rational. If it makes me look bad, oh well. I tried to adjust it in the last few posts, but I spend my whole life being serious and sometimes it gets tiring. If I came here to write like I do at work, I'd expect to get paid.
My students try to pick arguments with me and I can't tell them they're stupid even when they are. My colleagues do pick arguments with me and I can't tell them they're stupid even when they are. I can tell the bros though!
But you agree with the argument, so that's what matters to me. If you facepalm also, then I'll at least have entertained you. Cheers.
|
On January 15 2014 00:27 Djzapz wrote:Well then we fundamentally disagree AND you're willfully ignorant. Show nested quote +So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy. I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance. Show nested quote +unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards? How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly... She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too. You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion). I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology. Cheers. + Show Spoiler +I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base.
You claimed that this woman had the job in the bag, and that it was the pregnancy that made her lose it. And now you're trying to explain to me that her pregnancy wouldn't have had an effect on her performance. Why did they promise her the job when she wasn't pregnant, but not when she was pregnant, if the pregnancy wasn't an obstacle? If the pregnancy was just an excuse, they would have never promised her the job to begin with. You're clearly contradicting yourself. And what gives you the right to be the judge btw? You're still fixed on the idea that the firm did something wrong, and you haven't even heard their side of the story. I don't know their exact reasons. That's why I'm not criticizing them. You're criticizing them based on your blind faith in your acquitance. I have also explained why forcing them to give her the job would just create discrimination against young women. You have nothing to say about that, because you can't admit that you are wrong. Your reaction to being called out for being wrong is to spew out offensive words at your debate opponent. I can get a bit sharp too with my critique, but I only use words that I can back up through explanations.
I don't have all the answers, but I don't tolerate bullshit. I'm against feminist politics for the same reason why I'm against religion in politics. Feminism is not science. It's just a bunch of theories, and it's up to them to prove every single one of their theories. When you let theories without scientific foundations have a say in our lives, society is heading in the wrong direction. This is what's happening with feminism in many countries.
And good luck finding my so called ideology.
|
On January 15 2014 02:55 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 00:27 Djzapz wrote:Well then we fundamentally disagree AND you're willfully ignorant. So, because men have been dominating this sector, you make the assumption that they've been dominating it because they've been shutting out women. I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is pure idiocy. I specifically noted that it could also be because of cultural and social reasons which are informal.You read what you want to read I guess. Yet another instance of your willful ignorance. unless the pregnancy in a specific case wouldn't hurt their performance. It's very clear that in your case, and in many other cases, the pregnancy is an obstacle, and if it's an obstacle, why should the business be punished by being forced to lower their standards? How is it clear? You just make shit up on the fly... She took a maternity leave when she, you know, gave birth... And now she works as much as she used to. Her husband, my cousin, takes more days off when the kid is sick too. You're a lost cause so I'll keep it short as I do with all people who see the world in black and white and refuse to nuance their rather extreme and unreasonable views. And although your little opinion can hardly be viewed as extreme on its outcome, it's still extremely blind. Your notion that "feminism needs to prove that there's a problem" which is obvious but you prefer to ignore it is pure idiocy and laziness on your part, but I'd argue that it also borders on malicious because you're actively doing harm, IMO. Obviously me pointing at examples where society is or might still be semi-systematically discriminating against women is completely useless if you'll just bring up the notion of supply and demand as a legitimizing factor for everything that happens. If capitalism justifies everything, then everything is fine always over here (although certainly you'd like to nuance that to favor your opinion). I want to add something. At first, when we started talking, I thought that maybe you'd have something insightful to say. I thought that maybe you, like myself, had some reasons to doubt the efficacy of some feminist initiatives, and you had some reasons to argue with certain claims of inequality. Turns out you're just a frustrated guy who dismisses even the most basic examples of semi-systematic gender equality issues. And also you're fixated on free market bullshit so we couldn't agree even if you were intellectually honest which you aren't. Your whole act is thinly veiled and I think you're being very diplomatic about exposing what, there is no doubt in my mind, is a very disgusting ideology. Cheers. + Show Spoiler +I never defend feminism, I think it's 90% bullshit at this point. So the fact that I'm posting here like I care means that I believe this guy is outrageously fucking off base. You claimed that this woman had the job in the bag, and that it was the pregnancy that made her lose it. And now you're trying to explain to me that her pregnancy wouldn't have had an effect on her performance. Why did they promise her the job when she wasn't pregnant, but not when she was pregnant, if the pregnancy wasn't an obstacle? If the pregnancy was just an excuse, they would have never promised her the job to begin with. You're clearly contradicting yourself.
There's absolutely no contradiction, you're making the contradiction yourself in order to make the entire ordeal more suitable to your viewpoint.
You point out the contradiction in what I've said by assuming the corporate behavior to be legitimate. They were going to give her the PARTNERSHIP which btw is not a job, she's already their employee. She lost that opportunity when she got pregnant despite the fact that her performance remained high. But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet. The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant.
So there's no contradiction. You made it up for your convenience.
And what gives you the right to be the judge btw? You're still fixed on the idea that the firm did something wrong, and you haven't even heard their side of the story. I don't know their exact reasons. That's why I'm not criticizing them. You're criticizing them based on your blind faith in your acquitance. I have also explained why forcing them to give her the job would just create discrimination against young women. You have nothing to say about that, because you can't admit that you are wrong. Your reaction to being called out for being wrong is to spew out offensive words at your debate opponent. I can get a bit sharp too with my critique, but I only use words that I can back up through explanations.
As I said, my other cousin is on the partner's board. He was there when they made the decision not to give her the partnership when she got pregnant. He couldn't do anything about it because the decisions are taken by majority. It was discussed that she didn't get the partnership because she's pregnant. But when they gave the partnership to another guy (who, according to my cousin, is much less competent than my other cousin's wife), they didn't tell her that she didn't get the partnership because she got pregnant, because that's grounds for a lawsuit AS IT SHOULD BE.
I don't have all the answers, but I don't tolerate bullshit. I'm against feminist politics for the same reason why I'm against religion in politics. Feminism is not science. It's just a bunch of theories, and it's up to them to prove every single one of their theories. When you let theories without scientific foundations have a say in our lives, society is heading in the wrong direction. This is what's happening with feminism in many countries.
I couldn't possibly care less about feminist theories. I care about social, cultural and political issues that sometimes cause discrimination against women (or men, or anyone else). I care about the practical issues that exist in society. "The patriarchy" is a flawed concept and it doesn't tell me anything about what life is like.
Men still discriminate against women, white people still discriminate against black people, and vice versa. The reason why equal rights movements still exist is to attempt to deal with those problems that do still exist, whether they're due to remnants of the old traditions, or legislative/judiciary failures.
And good luck finding my so called ideology.
I'm pretty sure I know the kind of man you are. The broad strokes. Not pretty.
|
Not sure I understand the situation completely up there, but doesn't make much sense to me. You can't really predict a person's job performance due to having a child (some people can manage it all, others not so much) but isn't it more about the maternity leave? I don't actually know how long it is, or what the division rule is for the family, but wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off on that promotion or whatever until after she was fully back to work?
|
On January 15 2014 03:42 Dark_Chill wrote:
Not sure I understand the situation completely up there, but doesn't make much sense to me. You can't really predict a person's job performance due to having a child (some people can manage it all, others not so much) but isn't it more about the maternity leave? I don't actually know how long it is, or what the division rule is for the family, but wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off on that promotion or whatever until after she was fully back to work?
A partnership represents an extremely important career move. The company realistically wouldn't care much about a few weeks of maternity leave (she took 3 weeks), as the partnership usually lasts for many decades. It's assumed that a mother would take more days off over the course of the kid's early life and whatnot, which the company wouldn't know until it happened.
And you're right, you can't predict a person's job performance or their dedication due to having a child, but apparently according to L1ghtning, it's okay to assume. And as it is, my cousin's wife is still working 60-hour weeks as a mother and she takes as many days off as my cousin does when the kid is sick. They share the burden.
|
lol, people forget that fathers can also help with parenting
|
But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet.
I didn't say that her current performance were subpar. Noone in their right mind would think that a woman who just got pregnant, wouldn't be able to do her best at that very moment. It's the future that they had concerns with.
The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant.
Yes, finally you get it. They thought that she wouldn't be able to do the job as well as another person who wasn't pregnant. It's their decision. This is not a charity. A business needs to be able to pick the person that they think is the best. It's only you and your cousin on that board, and the woman in question who thinks that it's a unfounded reason, and you're all biased, since you know this person, and would always want what's best for her.
The others on the board disagreed with you, and they were not coming from a position of bias. And they went for the guy instead. If the government had forced them to give her the job anyway, they would have been cautious in the future about hiring young women, or making that kind of offers to them.
Men still discriminate against women, white people still discriminate against black people, and vice versa. The reason why equal rights movements still exist is to attempt to deal with those problems that do still exist, whether they're due to remnants of the old traditions, or legislative/judiciary failures.
You're clearly a lost cause since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against. You just KNOW it's true, and that's enough. It's because of ppl like you who just accept everything you're being taught without questioning it that we have created a society that discriminates in the name of anti-discrimination. I accept those opinions as theories, but that's all they are, theories. Of course, on a person to person basis, there are sexists and racists, and these ppl should get punished by our courts, but the idea that there's a systematic sexist and racist discrimination, that's not a fact. It's your opinion, and it's the opinion of feminists.
|
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
|
On January 15 2014 04:06 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +But when she lost the opportunity to get this partnership, her performance wasn't low. She hadn't taken her (very short) maternity leave yet. I didn't say that her current performance were subpar. Noone in their right mind would think that a woman who just got pregnant, wouldn't be able to do her best at that very moment. It's the future that they had concerns with. Show nested quote +The partner's board decided not to give her this partnership on the assumption that a pregnant woman wouldn't perform as well as she did before she got pregnant. Yes, finally you get it. They thought that she wouldn't be able to do the job as well as another person who wasn't pregnant. It's their decision. This is not a charity. A business needs to be able to pick the person that they think is the best. It's only you and your cousin on that board, and the woman in question who thinks that it's a unfounded reason, and you're all biased, since you know this person, and would always want what's best for her.
She was lined up for it but she ended up not getting picked for a feminine characteristic. This is discrimination.
The fact that the free market may justify it doesn't help us better understand if it's moral or not. As I said to display this before, the free market had little kids dying in dirty factories back in the day. Therefore "capitalism" is not a good basis for deciding whether we should do something or, unless private enterprise is not a part of our society and above morality. I would argue that yes private enterprise needs to make a profit, while behaving according to our moral standards.
I understand what you say, but the fact that a bunch of men speculate that a women won't be able to do the work because she's pregnant is bullshit, even though you might be able to justify it from a pure capitalist's standpoint, which btw is not the pinnacle of human achievement as you seem to believe.
Part of our disagreement, as I've said, stems from the fact that you outright assume capitalism and free market / supply and demand to always lead to the best and greatest thing. You should take a moment and ponder that.
You're clearly a lost cause since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against. You just KNOW it's true, and that's enough. It's because of ppl like you who just accept everything you're being taught without questioning it that we have created a society that discriminates in the name of anti-discrimination. I accept those opinions as theories, but that's all they are, theories. Of course, on a person to person basis, there are sexists and racists, and these ppl should get punished by our courts, but the idea that there's a systematic sexist and racist discrimination, that's not a fact. It's your opinion, and it's the opinion of feminists.
It's funny because we have the same criticism of each other. The only difference is that you're essentially asking for evidence of something that's not only obvious to anyone intellectually honest, but it's SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that even if I brought up this evidence, you would outright deny it. Want to know why I know that you would deny it? You already have, because it's in front of your eyes.
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
The point is that regardless of how prevalent the problem is, it's okay to try to deal with it.
Perhaps your blind faith in capitalism is not just PART of the reason why we disagree, but the entire reason why. It blinds you, makes you unable to see discrimination. Had we lived in the early 1900's when women were uneducated, if I had told you that there is discrimination, you would have told me there isn't: Women are dumb and incompetent, why should we try to elevate them? They can't do it and we know this because they don't. The market says women have no value and therefore that is a fact.
|
On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
|
On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct.
I don't necessarily believe in widespread discrimination, I merely believe that it still exists on a fairly important scale. I don't know what "widespread" entails but either way it does happen. And we have reasons to believe that it happens fairly frequently (those of us who don't dismiss all social problems by saying 'the free market wills it'.)
And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
You did when you assumed the decision to be right. And my cousin who's in the board said it's bullshit, I don't assume anything. I don't assume that she didn't get the partnership because she got pregnant, that's literally what happened. You ASSUME that it's okay because capitalism and therefore everything is dandy.
|
On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions.
No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption.
are you even trying reading comprehension
|
There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen.
There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us.
|
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
|
He doesn't agree that its morally terrible.
and isn't it also illegal if proven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
