Do you think Tim?
Your STEM comment is interestingâŚinteresting as it was discussed on the radio this morning you bullshitter.
Do you think Tim?
Your STEM comment is interestingâŚinteresting as it was discussed on the radio this morning you bullshitter.
The lobster thing was a load of horseshite. The notion that we are hard wired to accept hierarchical societies is simply a means of justifying inequality, leading people to shrug their shoulders and say, well we canât do anything about this itâs in our nature.
As a society we have created a shocking waste of potential by failing to accommodate the needs of women in their 30s and 40s and effectively disincentiving them from playing to their full potential in the work force during and after their child bearing years.
Given that women outperform men educationally and given that they are a majority in the marquee faculties in colleges it should be glaringly obvious that this is a regrettable waste of resources and that it is in everyoneâs interest that it should be remedied.
Women are too emotional and irrational to take on CEO positions and to be on capped equal pay with men. Theyâre also likely to hold grudges and circle back to something someone said or did in the past which hinders growth and progress.
I donât listen to the radio.
I never claimed saying encouraging STEM was my idea though you weirdo.
Why do they out perform men in education? Itâs been well established that men thrive when risk is a factor and excel in high competitive situations and stagnate in the class room when this doesnt exist- thatâs how we are hard wired. Women like structure and safety. Women also mature far, far quicker than men⌠these are all points that Jords points out. He doesnât rule out discrimination but we also cant count out the traits that make each sex tick. He also states how he has helped countless women excel in their career - heâs not against it - but by and large the capitalist market is male dominated because it is best suited to male characteristics - when women can adopt these characteristics they also flourish but given the choice, the majority of women want to be women.
Youâre on about over hauling the whole system and the way we think, educate, generate wealth - i.e moving beyond capitalism - which will take generations to accommodate ⌠as is, youâre trying to put square pegs in round holes.
You on the other hand are happy to perpetuate inequality because itâs too much trouble to change anything.
you could seduce an awful lot of women in their 30s and 40s with that spiel
Again you are conflating issues.
The point in the gender pay gap is the unexplained few cents difference. This guy attributes it mostly to being different characteristics generally.
The point about men and women in the workforce in their 30s and 40s is a different one.
I would agree there is always more that we can do to encourage women back into the workforce but you are being highly simplistic.
Is he married or does he have a gf actually? Seems to know loads about family dynamics in that age group.
Not at all - Iâm happy for the best person to do the best job, mate⌠Myself and Jords are merely saying that thereâs far more to it than mere discrimination , which of course does exist. Thereâs been a whole host of studies done on the stem thing - even in countries where women have more opportunities to work in these fields they choose roles more intrinsic to female hard wiring or sex specific traits if you will - and of course socio-cultural values⌠women want to be women and men want to be men - where they are doing the same job of course they deserve the same pay if they are performing on relative levels.
They might deserve the same pay, but they might not get it. Someone might be a poor negotiator.
People would be shocked in the range in salaries out there in the same organizations for the same roles.
The former, seems really clued into what women want.
Well Jords also makes this point in relation to women being more agreeable than men â Again, if the market dictates assertiveness wins out should we weaken the market to accommodate the less assertive? Or do we want the best of the best driving the market? â Itâs some where in the middle I suspect. The 1% are controlling commodities more and more and the average person is becoming a drone. The market needs regulation but not to the point that it has to bend to accommodate putting the weak behind the wheel.
He works with women in Therapy every day and has done for a long time.
The job Iâve been doing the last few years, all of my dealings are with men only. Itâs night and day the difference that makes. I work closely with one other chap, while there are three others do work for us as the need arises. All of these lads are in their late 30s and 40s and they all have such common sense, professionalism, practicality and are emotionless. There has never been a screed of bitterness or disgruntlement between us in all these years.
The chap I work closely with I am his superior. I canât imagine how he would feel about me if he was a woman. There is no small talk like youâd get with a woman âHow was your weekend, did you do anything nice?â. We have basic knowledge of each otherâs lives, we are not mates, which works well in terms of getting stuff done and not falling out. He doesnât need that affirmation that women seek that heâs doing a good job. Just gets on with it and enjoys his down time.
I remember working with women in my mid twenties and I was over one woman in particular about 15yrs my senior. She was bitter about being told what to do and having her work critiqued by a man who was likely in nappies when she was doing her leaving cert. All she wanted to do was drink tea and make small talk. The rest of the women in the company werenât as bad but spent half their time bitching about others in the company. It would drive you mad.
Iâve reported to women in 2 jobs in my career and I will never do so again. I would not accept a job if I had to report to a woman I wouldnât care if it was double my money. Not worth it. Too volatile and irrational.
No we should not. Itâs a total nonsense and corruption of capitalist enterprise.
Life isnât fair. Just because I get a degree doesnât owe me a living and just because I am in the same profession or organisation âdoing the same thingâ doesnât entitle me to the same. That line of thinking comes from a trade union mindset and is at odds with human behaviour.
Earning less because you are a woman is wrong. Earning less because you donât have the guts to ask for an increase or move organisation is your own fault.
People should be free to tell others what they earn, but not forced to.
Thatâs a fundamental for me. On actual government policies to encourage people I am in favour to a point. Encouraging STEM in girls schools is right. I am convinced myself for the need for more enforced paternity leave like in Germany for Ireland. I think the gender pay gap as proof of sexism is a nonsense but I do think thereâs no doubt that women are often times still discriminated against in terms of getting higher roles. It isnât even machosim, but if you had an organisation with a dozen people and needed to promote someone youâd obviously at least he thinking of the potential for losing a person if theyâre a woman in their early 30s and recently married. Youâd be a poor business person to not consider the potential lost time and extra costs there. Thatâs why I think itâs right that we mandate that men take more leave in year 1 of a childâs life.
We have to be careful on policies though. Tax individualization was brilliant for getting married women into the workforce and fairness for single persons- but it also helped drive up property prices in Ireland and gave money to banks. A single person 30 years ago was far more likely to be able to get a mortgage than now in Ireland. There are consequences.