Feminism.

reinoe said:

What unequal opportunities in the U.S. do women face? Is there something stopping them from applying to Harvard, Congress, or the Service Academies that we don't know about?

Click to expand...

Well, men make up around 85% of US boardroom positions compared to 15% for women, so what do you think?

Aristaeus said:

Well, men make up around 85% of US boardroom positions compared to 15% for women, so what do you think?

Click to expand...

This doesn't necessarily indicate bias against women.

On average women are more agreeable than men (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/) this means they are generally less likely to march into their boss's office and demand a raise or promotion. It also means that upon a pay review on average they are more likely to agree with whatever is offered rather than saying "actually I think you should pay me more." Of course some women are not as agreeable as others, and they tend to be more successful, and some men are less agreeable than average (they are also liable to be paid less).

I'm an agreeable person, I would find it difficult to demand more money or a promotion. Of course when we talk about averages and generalisations we are not saying there are not exceptions, but it would at least go some way towards explaining the gender pay gap.

It's also clear that age is a factor (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/mobile/womens-and-mens-earnings-by-age-in-2016.htm) the gap increases with age, but is less pronounced in younger people. Why might that be? Generally men continue in their careers while women sacrifice their career to raise children. That's not to say that they are obligated to do so, but again it is a factor. Traditionally men remain in their careers to support their families while women make sacrifices for their children. I personally see no reason why it shouldn't be the other way around if that is how people want to do things, but as it stands it seems people want to go down the traditional route---which is also fine and completely voluntary.

What I don't see when looking at the gender pay gap is systematic oppression of women. In order to tackle the issue sensibly we need to look at the factors and statistics rather than shouting "smash the patriarchy!" And expecting that to solve a complex issue.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

DeadCircuits said:

This doesn't necessarily indicate bias against women.

Click to expand...

For that stat not to indicate bias, it would require one of the following scenarios:

1) Only 15% of women apply or attempt to make it into the boardroom.

2) 85% of male employees aiming for the boardroom are better candidates than women.

I strongly disagree with both of those two statements and find the argument that the boardroom has been a male-dominated environment for decades which has led to a boys-only club mentality a far more compelling one.

James972 said:

If hiring women gave you a competitive edge women would be the hottest commodity on earth.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying they give you a competitive edge. We're saying that hiring women doesn't hurt you, and hiring men doesn't benefit you in any way. Men and women are both equally capable and neither sex has a real advantage in almost any of your typical jobs. But since it's almost exclusively men in charge of the hiring their personal bias causes them to gravitate toward hiring other men who they better relate to.

James972 said:

Ever see Money Ball???

Click to expand...

You're making my point for me. All of the statistics used in money ball have existed since the inception of the game of baseball, but for most of the history of the game bullheaded men who trusted their instincts and their gut over math largely ignored them. Even today, there are a lot of old men in power that continue to doubt analytics when their gut tells them something else. If statistics are close, they still rely on their gut to make up the difference which in a world where virtually all professional sports teams owners are white guys they tend to favor white guys. Particularly for positions that are perceived to require intelligence and leadership skills like QB and head coach.

James972 said:

agree, modern feminism is just leftism. Original feminism was on balance harmful too as it helped destroy love and family.

Click to expand...

Feminism is leftism only because misogyny is rightism.

Aristaeus said:

For that stat not to indicate bias, it would require one of the following scenarios:

1) Only 15% of women apply or attempt to make it into the boardroom.

2) 85% of male employees aiming for the boardroom are better candidates than women.

I strongly disagree with both of those two statements and find the argument that the boardroom has been a male-dominated environment for decades which has led to a boys-only club mentality a far more compelling one.

Click to expand...

boardroom is only for top top top people. Women often quit to have babies so that mostly removes them from top top top spots in boardroom. they are still number 1 in maternity ward though. Not a bad trade off I'd say.

MrWonka said:

Men and women are both equally capable and neither sex has a real advantage in almost any of your typical jobs.

Click to expand...

10 years out half of the women from Harvard Business School will have quit to have babies so there is a big disadvantage to hiring them. Always remember if it is liberal it is BS.

MrWonka said:

You're making my point for me. All of the statistics used in money ball have existed since the inception of the game of baseball, but for most of the history of the game bullheaded men who trusted their instincts and their gut over math largely ignored them.

Click to expand...

Moneyball was 20 years ago. Some teams tried it in whole or in part from 1898-2017 and had varying degrees of success or failure with it. Business is same way.
A company going bankrupt will try anything including hiring women who supposedly work at a 25% discount to save itself. That is the pure beauty of Republican capitalism. Money talks and prejudice walks.

James972 said:

boardroom is only for top top top people. Women often quit to have babies so that mostly removes them from top top top spots in boardroom. they are still number 1 in maternity ward though. Not a bad trade off I'd say.

Click to expand...

I don't know any women who quit to have babies. They take maternity leave, but that is usually around 6 months in most developed nations or 6 weeks in America, and that should have no effect on a decades long journey to the boardroom.

MrWonka said:

Feminism is leftism only because misogyny is rightism.

Click to expand...

Which is Nazism, right?

Aristaeus said:

For that stat not to indicate bias, it would require one of the following scenarios:

1) Only 15% of women apply or attempt to make it into the boardroom.

2) 85% of male employees aiming for the boardroom are better candidates than women.

I strongly disagree with both of those two statements and find the argument that the boardroom has been a male-dominated environment for decades which has led to a boys-only club mentality a far more compelling one.

Click to expand...

I don't see that it is a boys-only club mentality. I don't see why that would come into it. Of course if that is the case I would argue that something ought to change.

My point is that generally by the time you reach that level in a company you're probably in your 40's, have worked hard and made sacrifices (such as not spending much time with your family while you work). It is simply the case that if you have decided to take time out of work to raise a family that you are going to be left behind so far as that goes. Our society doesn't compel that, for the most part people do it voluntarily. Again it's important to state that I don't think women should raise a family if they don't want to, or that men shouldn't take that role, it's just generally what happens.

By the time you have worked somewhere for long enough to be eligible for the boardroom, there will probably be less eligible women for the role because a lot of them will have taken time out or cut their hours to start a family, while the men continue to work. Not all of them do of course, but it will make a difference to the overall statistic.

43% of women take time out of their career to raise children if this is the case you have at least part of your answer as to why more men make it into the boardroom. Not because they don't want women in there, but because by that point many women have dropped out of the race.

A lot of executives work 72 hour weeks in order to get to that point you have to sacrifice time with your family, or not have one. I'm not saying women are incapable of putting in that kind of work, rather that on the whole they make the opposite sacrifice; family over career. There's no compulsion in that, it's just the preferences people tend to have. It don't think it is indicative of systemic bias.

DeadCircuits said:

I don't see that it is a boys-only club mentality. I don't see why that would come into it. Of course if that is the case I would argue that something ought to change.

My point is that generally by the time you reach that level in a company you're probably in your 40's, have worked hard and made sacrifices (such as not spending much time with your family while you work). It is simply the case that if you have decided to take time out of work to raise a family that you are going to be left behind so far as that goes. Our society doesn't compel that, for the most part people do it voluntarily. Again it's important to state that I don't think women should raise a family if they don't want to, or that men shouldn't take that role, it's just generally what happens.

By the time you have worked somewhere for long enough to be eligible for the boardroom, there will probably be less eligible women for the role because a lot of them will have taken time out or cut their hours to start a family, while the men continue to work. Not all of them do of course, but it will make a difference to the overall statistic.

43% of women take time out of their career to raise children if this is the case you have at least part of your answer as to why more men make it into the boardroom. Not because they don't want women in there, but because by that point many women have dropped out of the race.

A lot of executives work 72 hour weeks in order to get to that point you have to sacrifice time with your family, or not have one. I'm not saying women are incapable of putting in that kind of work, rather that on the whole they make the opposite sacrifice; family over career. There's no compulsion in that, it's just the preferences people tend to have. It don't think it is indicative of systemic bias.

Click to expand...

There is no reason whatsoever why taking 6 months or so out for maternity leave should bring a decades-long career path to a permanent halt.

This 'getting left behind' argument is bull. Has a woman with 25 years experience minus 6 months maternity been left behind compared to a man with 20 years experience and no maternity leave?

Aristaeus said:

There is no reason whatsoever why taking 6 months or so out for maternity leave should bring a decades-long career path to a permanent halt.

This 'getting left behind' argument is bull. Has a woman with 25 years experience minus 6 months maternity been left behind compared to a man with 20 years experience and no maternity leave?

Click to expand...

Where does this six months come from?

Some mother's stop working completely or drop their hours to look after their family. How many of them work 72 hours a week when they've got children?

6 months leave probably wouldn't make much of a dent, but what if they have 3 kids? That's a year and a half.

It's a complicated issue. With a lot of factors at play. Saying it's a boy's only club and they don't want any ladies in on their meetings is a complete over simplification. Is maternity leave the only thing preventing women from entering the boardroom? Probably not, but it's a factor. There are probably other benign factors too. We need to be able to look at it sensibly, as I really don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

You're essentially positing some kind of conspiracy theory. That this monolithic 85% of men in boardrooms all dislike women enough to not want them among their own.

Do you really think successful business leaders would be where they are if they always chose the less qualified man over a more qualified woman? These people are successful because they know what they are doing and they don't make mistakes. They wouldn't be in the boardroom if they were that incompetent.

To me the statistic assuming it is accurate must have a more complex cause. Your explanation is akin to saying "the Illuminati did it" and thinking that explains everything. It doesn't. It doesn't even make sense and it prevents a reasonable conversation about it.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

MrWonka said:

Nobody is saying they give you a competitive edge. We're saying that hiring women doesn't hurt you,.

Click to expand...

how could it not hurt you when most most quit to have babies???

Aristaeus said:

I don't know any women who quit to have babies.

Click to expand...

then you don't pay attention. Its not about the women you happen to know! 60 minutes did report showing that half of the women from Harvard Business dropped out of work force after 10 years. THese are the women who might have made it to the board room. Now do you understand?

James972 said:

then you don't pay attention. Its not about the women you happen to know! 60 minutes did report showing that half of the women from Harvard Business dropped out of work force after 10 years. THese are the women who might have made it to the board room. Now do you understand?

Click to expand...

But they're out of the workforce numbers so have no impact on the 85/15 percentage rates.

James972 said:

how could it not hurt you when most most quit to have babies???

Click to expand...

Most women don't quit their job/retire to have a child.

Aristaeus said:

But they're out of the workforce numbers so have no impact on the 85/15 percentage rates.

Click to expand...

yes women naturally drop out of the work force, especially those that start out on the fastest track, and thus women have a lower chance of making it up the corporate ladder

Aristaeus said:

Most women don't quit their job/retire to have a child.

Click to expand...

half of the women from Harvard Business School do and those who don't opt for less difficult schedules so as to acomodate both work and personal life. Do you understand?

Aristaeus said:

Most women don't quit their job/retire to have a child.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting "most" from or what that means percentage wise. However I would point out that not dropping out of work to have children is not the same as putting in the requisite work to become a boardroom member. It could be certainly, but it could be that a lot of women choose a balance that means ignoring emails outside of office hours, not staying late etc. Generally to reach high levels you have to give a lot of your time to get there. Those who stay in the office late and spend their free time answering emails are going to be ahead of the game. It's just the way it is.

Not dropping out of a job is not the same as being anywhere close to making it into the boardroom. Most men don't make it either. You have to sacrifice a lot to get there, of those who are prepared to do so it seems that the majority happen to be male, and I would posit that this has something to do with raising families. I'm not saying it's exclusively so, but it is a factor.

Explain how this conspiracy to maintain a boy's only club works, what happens? Who decides it? Where is your evidence that this mentality is prevalent? It sounds like paranoid nonsense to me.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk