In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action. almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store. Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family. The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well. you think men don't have to choose between having a career and family? yes, women have just as many choices as men do. or are you telling me the same women who can choose to have sex and then scream rape the next day can't choose to not get knocked up? No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework. many of you want to have baby only to be "in the club", to remain in your social circle. matter of fact, many women these days have wise up to that fact and decided to make the same choice men did, which is not to have baby, at least until both of them together can afford it. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn Mathematically not nearly in the same way. They can, but due to cultural gender norms and I think also motherly biology, it, on average does not. We actually have mathematical proof of this in (drum-roll please) our wage gap. You realize that it is the woman, and not the man that has to get "knocked up" yeah? Can you choose to give birth? |
|
|
|
Short of employers or the law treating men and women differently, there is no way to correct this other than a remodeling of societal expectations, which are hard-coded into our culture, if not our DNA. Yes and no. Changing the work week schedule wouldn't have to be gender specific but I also think that culture is absolutely something that we can, and have changed over time. We no longer measure women's skirts at the beach to ensure modesty compliance, or escort girls when they go on dates. |
|
|
|
If someone chooses to take parental leave--paid or unpaid--and loses out on experience, there is always a penalty. If you leave work early on a regular basis or are otherwise not available because of family obligations, there is a penalty, just the same as if you work too much, there is a penalty with your family. Society makes women more likely to incur the penalties because of expectations for women. But it's not a particular institution that is creating the problem. This is actually addressed directly in the article that I posted on the first page. There are institutional items that can be changed. There are women who forego families or at least the majority of the day to day of family life and, I'm willing to bet, their careers and salaries end up comparable to men with like experience. Yes and no, they ultimately have to make the choice and if work is chosen it tends to have negative consequences for the children which is a social problem. |
|
|
|
I think you are making my point. There is no substitute for "being there," whether at work or on the home front. That's why people who have breaks in their careers, for whatever reason, have a harder time advancing and make less money. Think of it like Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours requirement. If you miss a substantial amount of work, which is roughly equated with experience, you are worth less to most employers.
If someone chooses to take parental leave--paid or unpaid--and loses out on experience, there is always a penalty. If you leave work early on a regular basis or are otherwise not available because of family obligations, there is a penalty, just the same as if you work too much, there is a penalty with your family. Society makes women more likely to incur the penalties because of expectations for women. But it's not a particular institution that is creating the problem. There are women who forego families or at least the majority of the day to day of family life and, I'm willing to bet, their careers and salaries end up comparable to men with like experience.
Short of employers or the law treating men and women differently, there is no way to correct this other than a remodeling of societal expectations, which are hard-coded into our culture, if not our DNA. I, for one, do not want to see the law treat people differently based on race or gender or any other immutable characteristic, so I am opposed to anything that would attempt to level the playing field, especially since negative side effects are very tough to gauge.
As to your last point, I would just say that men and women are and should be equal, but they are not interchangeable. There are certain tasks and jobs that men are better suited to, just as there are some that women are better suited to. That said, I am opposed to any discrimination that does not have a basis in merit.
I don't see how that is "making your point" when your attempted point was that perceptions of discrimination are more damaging than discrimination. The example you gave has nothing to do with what your attempted point was. The scenario you painted isn't the result of direct discrimination from the employer, nor from perceptions of discrimination from the employee. But it absolutely is unfair, and is the type of thing that one would naturally and justifiably complain about. There are a lot of other factors though outside of mere maternal leave, ways in which our work institutions are set up that are harder on women than on men and ways our cultural perceptions of what women should do is also a contributing factor (and one easily observable across cultures). |
|
|
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action. almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store. Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family. The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well. |
|
|
|
I completely understand the idea of BOTH parents taking time off just because they would be so frazzled from lack of sleep that they wouldn't make good workers, but you have to know that missing work for that long of a period will affect your job. Of course it can, which makes women naturally disadvantaged and leads to the exact scenario that I pointed out above and to a culture where we have a very real wage gap between genders as a result. |
|
|
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
Those aren't equivalent scenarios. The man is expected to come back into work pretty much ASAP and he has significant freedom of choice to do so (generally speaking). The woman in your scenario on the other hand essentially has to choose between both her health and the health of her child / having a family vs getting ahead at work. While males can face those choices too, they are MUCH more common and on average MUCH more impactful (negatively in the work sphere) on females. The cost of going into work is far different for each of your two examples as is the cost of staying home. I'd also argue that simple blatant discrimination would also be worse than the costs of those choices that you presented. Your scenario with blatant discrimination wouldn't even exist because the woman wouldn't be able to get ahead in the job regardless of whether or not she went in the day after giving birth or stayed at home for a couple of months. Which still leaves your previous assertion rendered false. In basically every other culture (including America before we moved to the cities), it's normal for a woman to have a kid then go back to working almost immediately. I completely understand the idea of BOTH parents taking time off just because they would be so frazzled from lack of sleep that they wouldn't make good workers, but you have to know that missing work for that long of a period will affect your job. In most other cultures historically speaking when that is done the baby is taken with them directly to work, and I would also point out that it wasn't exactly healthy for the mothers and children. Developing economies generally aren't bastions of child and maternal health. |
|
|
|
In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.
Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?
Those aren't equivalent scenarios. The man is expected to come back into work pretty much ASAP and he has significant freedom of choice to do so (generally speaking). The woman in your scenario on the other hand essentially has to choose between both her health and the health of her child / having a family vs getting ahead at work. While males can face those choices too, they are MUCH more common and on average MUCH more impactful (negatively in the work sphere) on females. The cost of going into work is far different for each of your two examples as is the cost of staying home. I'd also argue that simple blatant discrimination would also be worse than the costs of those choices that you presented. Your scenario with blatant discrimination wouldn't even exist because the woman wouldn't be able to get ahead in the job regardless of whether or not she went in the day after giving birth or stayed at home for a couple of months. Which still leaves your previous assertion rendered false. |
|
|
|
Engineers, Scientists, CPAs, Investors, etc... all sit on the right side of the income curve. Just because women are getting more degrees doesn't mean it will remove income disparity. Income disparity will only be leveled by having more women pursuing the aforementioned fields instead of going to school to work in primary education or just because their parents said they had to (most 4 year business degrees have been described as high school 2.0).
Then there is the argument that true income equality still has women on the slightly lower side because of the fact that they play a necessary biological role which anchors stable family life.
Women are genetically more nurturing than men. Why wouldn't they tend to chose fields of study more akin to their genetic disposition? Very little income disparity exist in fields where men and women are performing the same job, with the same level of expertize. Income disparity between sexes is such a 70's thing. |
|
|
|
|
They want to keep you in the company, but after the VP reviewed your credentials and work history, he discovered the position you have applied for is well above your education level and skill-set. He is trying to let you down softly.
|
|
|
|
Fact is that women get pregnant and men do not and you would have to take every pregnancy or child care factor out of all the data in order for it to be more of an apple versus apple comparison then what it is now. Good analysis does exactly this. Or rather doesn't rely on a single variable model and can see which explanatory variables most impact the constant variable. One might explain 7% of the differences seen in relative wage rates, another might explain 3%, etc Getting back to the 20th century, and what still directly affects our culture today, is that if the men came back alive but injured or otherwise affected by the horrors of war, those whom they had the "honor" of "serving" would fight like hell to deny them treatment and care beyond that which was politically expedient. Once the wars were "over," everyone tries to forget about it. The former slaves receive substandard care if they receive any at all. These days they're fighting with backlogs and waiting lists that might take years before they get treatment. This has created a culture wherein men are viewed as disposable. Men believe themselves to be disposable. And if they dare to assert their rights, then they're wimps, sissies, cowards, etc. Yesallmen is a feminist hashtag that some women use when complaining about things that guys do. They are angry that some guys interrupt with "not all men do that" and see it as an attack on the hardships that women have to put up with via their interactions with the male gender. It became a feminist meme and one that is actually pretty damaging to feminism. It really means pretty much what it says: all men do XYZ. It's sexism. |
|
|
|
Fact is that women get pregnant and men do not and you would have to take every pregnancy or child care factor out of all the data in order for it to be more of an apple versus apple comparison then what it is now. Good analysis does exactly this. Or rather doesn't rely on a single variable model and can see which explanatory variables most impact the constant variable. One might explain 7% of the differences seen in relative wage rates, another might explain 3%, etc |
|
|
|
Fertility rates have a direct statistically significant correlation with relative wage earnings for women.
There are a lot of other factors though, sexism is one, and what I believe you are talking about: stream divergence or grouping of female labor into specific markets is another (though its impact varies by country). Of course one could make an argument that such grouping of female labor exists largely because of ingrained professional gender roles within society where women are culturally steered toward say nursing and teaching than they are to engineering, and tech fields. But I've never spent as much time looking at that discussion.
You're always free to examine the data and look at the methodology yourself to find data sets that meet your standards. If you're willing to do your due diligence then yes. We have very good access to this data in the United States. |
|
|
|
|
problem with 'real' data is who is doing the collecting and editing and how honest are they?
Anymore can you really trust any 'data' that comes from any source that is has NOT been cherry picked, etc.
Fact is that women get pregnant and men do not and you would have to take every pregnancy or child care factor out of all the data in order for it to be more of an apple versus apple comparison then what it is now.
|
|
|
|
I live in a different country and I email a couple times a month. I usually call once a month but sometimes don’t at all ,sometimes I call more if there is a birthday or I need something done for me
My mom guilt trips me into talking. "I just hope you say everything you want because someday I'll be gone and you'll look back and ask why we didn't talk more often..." lol mine doesn’t guilt me that bad but I still feel guilty know I should call more but there is a 16 hour time difference makes it difficult sometimes. Its easy to not call during the week and then forget on the weekend, then all of a sudden I haven’t talked to them in a couple of months... I update g+ with baby pictures and tell them I hope they’re doing well when they comment I don’t feel too bad though. my brother in law lives in a different city but comes into town (where his parents still live) for business a few times a year. He doesn’t call or stop by pretty nice guy and he cares about his mom, he just doesn’t really seem to like seeing her |
|
|
|
|
The Druze faith began as a movement in Ismailism that was mainly influenced by Greek philosophy and Gnosticism and opposed certain religious and philosophical ideologies that were present during that epoch.
The faith was preached by Hamza ibn 'Alī ibn Ahmad, an Ismaili mystic and scholar. He came to Egypt in 1014 and assembled a group of scholars and leaders from across the world to establish the Unitarian movement. The order's meetings were held in the Raydan Mosque, near the Al-Hakim Mosque.
In 1017, Hamza officially revealed the Druze faith and began to preach the Unitarian doctrine. Hamza gained the support of the Fātimid Caliph al-Hakim, who issued a decree promoting religious freedom prior to the declaration of the divine call.
Remove ye the causes of fear and estrangement from yourselves. Do away with the corruption of delusion and conformity. Be ye certain that the Prince of Believers hath given unto you free will, and hath spared you the trouble of disguising and concealing your true beliefs, so that when ye work ye may keep your deeds pure for God. He hath done thus so that when you relinquish your previous beliefs and doctrines ye shall not indeed lean on such causes of impediments and pretensions. By conveying to you the reality of his intention, the Prince of Believers hath spared you any excuse for doing so. He hath urged you to declare your belief openly. Ye are now safe from any hand which may bring harm unto you. Ye now may find rest in his assurance ye shall not be wronged. Let those who are present convey this message unto the absent so that it may be known by both the distinguished and the common people. It shall thus become a rule to mankind; and Divine Wisdom shall prevail for all the days to come.
Established possibly exactly 1000 years ago this week, and officially 1000 years in 2017 ? Tis a cause for celebration !
|
|
|
|
This is more about Christianity than Judaism, but this is my favorite religious movie. Not my favorite movie of all-time; that would be Jacob's Ladder. But my favorite religious movie. The Body starring Spanish actor Antonio Banderas and Israeli Actor Mohammad Bakri. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZllO9w0DKAout of all the thousands of types of holy head wear, what is your favourite ?those pointy hats probably started off 6 inches high many years ago a grew year by year, a bit like the growth of the mitre ... in 500 years the mitre could be 6 foot tall ? |
|
|
|
|
How about if alien arachnids invaded israel and gaza ?
Would there be a little more cohesion between the otherwise warring tribes in tackling the alien threat to all human life ?
Or would Israel offer the gazans as human sacrifices to the new arachnid overlords and vice versa ?
|
|
|
|
|
I live in a different country and I email a couple times a month. I usually call once a month but sometimes don’t at all ,sometimes I call more if there is a birthday or I need something done for me
|
|
|
|
|
Actually if you wanted it to stop you do away with insurance… Make everyone pay for their care out of their own pocket…
Doctors used to do house calls for a couple of chickens…
Then came along insurance…
Look what it cost to fix a car before mandatory car insurance came along.
But actually the price of the blood test is nothing compared to what it's going to be now that health insurance is mandatory…
I do tell people if they want their problem fixed in one visit just tell them you don't have any insurance… Years ago I had an issue and did not have insurance and in one office visit I got what was needed to take care of it… It reoccurs every so often and now with insurance, it's a doctors visit, three specialist, CAT scan, and then finally some antibiotics… and I tell them why not just give me the antibiotic , we can skip all the other stuff
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
