i agree with sirell here ;O
Employers are always seeking to maximize productivity and benefits. I really don't see how it's discriminatory to include a term that prohibits pregnancy, since pregnancy will almost guarantee a lack of productivity. It's not like employers "don't want women." They simply don't want to deal with the costs of having a relatively inefficient worker. Women are permitted to work under the same circumstances as men. Pregnancy is a choice to be made and is absolutely avoidable if a woman wants to focus on work.
Now on the other hand if a woman wants a child AND the ability to work, I think it's her responsibility to negotiate the terms with the employer. I really don't see how it's the employer's responsibility to alleviate for a worker's lack of productivity. Workers are the ones trying to earn the money. Employers are supposed to have a natural advantage in selecting who they want in their company. Same reasoning as why workers who are slacking off get fired - because they aren't working at a high enough efficiency.
I think arguments for "gender equality" in modern society are really getting out of hand. The general public arguing for feminism is gradually starting to expect compensation for natural disadvantages just by slapping on some phrases like "discrimination" and gender equality."
I mean gender inequality, for the most part, refers to a difference in expectations and treatment in genders due to stereotypes. It's not like males and females should both be exactly the same. Males and females are two different genders for a reason.
just my 2c
Employers are always seeking to maximize productivity and benefits. I really don't see how it's discriminatory to include a term that prohibits pregnancy, since pregnancy will almost guarantee a lack of productivity. It's not like employers "don't want women." They simply don't want to deal with the costs of having a relatively inefficient worker. Women are permitted to work under the same circumstances as men. Pregnancy is a choice to be made and is absolutely avoidable if a woman wants to focus on work.
Now on the other hand if a woman wants a child AND the ability to work, I think it's her responsibility to negotiate the terms with the employer. I really don't see how it's the employer's responsibility to alleviate for a worker's lack of productivity. Workers are the ones trying to earn the money. Employers are supposed to have a natural advantage in selecting who they want in their company. Same reasoning as why workers who are slacking off get fired - because they aren't working at a high enough efficiency.
I think arguments for "gender equality" in modern society are really getting out of hand. The general public arguing for feminism is gradually starting to expect compensation for natural disadvantages just by slapping on some phrases like "discrimination" and gender equality."
I mean gender inequality, for the most part, refers to a difference in expectations and treatment in genders due to stereotypes. It's not like males and females should both be exactly the same. Males and females are two different genders for a reason.
just my 2c
my post here is reaching out to pretty much anything, not just the pay gap myth that feminists like to perpetuate.
let me preface this by posting some hard facts.
men, have an xy chromosome.
women, have an xx chromosome.
this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children. this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children.
this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic ****ing human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics.
yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal.
let me preface this by posting some hard facts.
men, have an xy chromosome.
women, have an xx chromosome.
this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children. this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children.
this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic ****ing human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics.
yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
caucheka wrote:
my post here is reaching out to pretty much anything, not just the pay gap myth that feminists like to perpetuate.
let me preface this by posting some hard facts.
men, have an xy chromosome.
women, have an xx chromosome.
this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children. this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children.
this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic ****ing human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics.
yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal.
let me preface this by posting some hard facts.
men, have an xy chromosome.
women, have an xx chromosome.
this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children. this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children.
this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic ****ing human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics.
yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal.
You missed out Turner-Syndrome
Thanks to Natuhlee for this sig!
caucheka wrote:
let me preface this by posting some hard facts.
men, have an xy chromosome.
women, have an xx chromosome.
Uh no. Human males, usually, feature one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Human females, on the other hand, feature two X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes. Call me a nitpicking **** all you want, but if you're going to state something, at least have the decency to look it up on Wikipedia just for the sake of making sure that you state it right.
caucheka wrote:
this will never change. this is WHOLLY the cause of difference between men and women, it is why from the dawn of time man has gone out to hunt while the woman raised the children.this is why, even in today's society which is so distanced from the cavemen times, that statistically, men want to get a high paying job and support their family while women want a job that is statistically easier, requires less hours, and is closer to home so they may continue to raise the children.
Actually, no. The reason men hunt and women didn't was because of their physical superiority and not solely because they have a Y chromosome. One can argue that the Y chromosome is the initial cause of that but that does not allow it to be used as an argument in modern times, unless we're talking about physically exhausting work.
This argument is essentially "Don't fix that what isn't broken" which isn't an argument at all.
caucheka wrote:
this isn't something made by society to try to keep women down, this is basic ****ing human nature. hell, most animals follow similar 'gender roles'. it does not mean that women can't go out and do things men do or vice versa, just that it is 'favorable' by genetics.
That depends entirely on the era. I mean there were times women weren't allowed to vote for example, that has nothing to do with the whole "men hunt, women gather berries" argument. That it's more favourable depends entirely on what we are talking about. There's no real reason that women are supposedly worse at managing people than men are. However, just the fact that we are used to this makes people feel more secure with a man in charge, thus making companies more inclined to go with men. This is just one of the examples. Also, I'm not saying that this policy is wrong, because, frankly, it's fairly understandable, although it is the result of some gender role division we have established.
caucheka wrote:
yes, we have come a long way in the past 60 or so years in bringing equal rights between the sexes, and yes, there is still more that could be done, not just to make things more equal for women, but there are also a lot of things that are unjustly unfavorable towards men that need to be fixed. but as long as men continue to be men, and women continue to be women, we will never be 100% truly equal.
Sure, there's some situations in which men are treated "unfairly" based on a gender role stereotype but that generally doesn't seem so interesting to the media. Also, I doubt we should strive for equality, because frankly, and this is something I do agree with, is that men and women are different regarding certain things. However, this aims more at the cases in which the inequality is merely the result of an arbitrary gender role division we are sticking by for the sake of convenience and not when it is the result of actual causations that can be backed up by deductive reasoning.
jhoijhoi wrote:
your opinions of pregnancy AND women is outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory.
sirell wrote:
No, **** it, you don't deserve a proper reply any more. As soon as you brought insults into this discussion, you lost all right to be taken seriously.
Btw, last I checked, females can be fertile too. Seriously, **** your sexist ********.
Btw, last I checked, females can be fertile too. Seriously, **** your sexist ********.
I think we got on the wrong track here. My intention wasn't to insult you, I do apologise. I merely meant that your opinion that discrimination isn't discrimination is literally wrong based upon your own words "I don't care if it's discrimination, my opinion is that it isn't". I'm not excusing the above words, but I didn't call YOU names, I was referring to your viewpoints. But I do apologise, as I really didn't mean to insult you. I was in a rush to get out of the house and wasn't thinking about my own words and how they'd hurt you - that was poor form on my behalf.
As for the fertile comment, that was my point actually. Not hiring someone because they can bear children - I wasn't referring to men with that comment.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Psi, Ichi and Nick: That's the problem, you assume that a woman IS the primary caregiver, that the woman WANTS to take care of a child once the child has been born. That's simply not the case for women who do want to continue their careers. But the problem is men and women in this society do not consider whether or not the woman is the primary caregiver - they just assume it.
Oh excuse me for assuming that someone who gets pregnant wants to take care of children, my bad. Maybe if you do not want to take care of the thing then you shouldn't get it in the first place! This may be incredibly controversial, but I, for one, think that not taking care of your children is bad.
Nick, I missed your point in the previous post, could you explain/elaborate further with what you meant? (the point about biological attachment and hormones)
Is your view the same for the father? Should the father also take time from work to raise a child and then return to work part-time?
GrandmasterD wrote:
Oh excuse me for assuming that someone who gets pregnant wants to take care of children, my bad. Maybe if you do not want to take care of the thing then you shouldn't get it in the first place! This may be incredibly controversial, but I, for one, think that not taking care of your children is bad.
Is your view the same for the father? Should the father also take time from work to raise a child and then return to work part-time?
jhoijhoi wrote:
Nick, I missed your point in the previous post, could you explain/elaborate further with what you meant? (the point about biological attachment and hormones)
Is your view the same for the father? Should the father also take time from work to raise a child and then return to work part-time?
Is your view the same for the father? Should the father also take time from work to raise a child and then return to work part-time?
With all the love, care, and respect in the world, I really think you need to read a book with the title along the line of "My Body and I" because I can't understand how a woman can ask me that question.
My point was that, generally speaking, assuming the mother is healthy, the mother will experience a natural, biological, attachment to/bond with their offspring, mostly due to the effect of hormones. This actually is, unlike Caucheka's statement, a result of genetics and it has a very obvious biological function: Survival. Hence, my statement wasn't so much directed at "they want to" but more at "they need to" because that's normal. For fathers, however, this is different, mostly because they did not actually spent 9 months carrying them around, thus they're less inclined on insisting to take care of them. Does that mean that fathers never want that? No. However it's more of an exception than a rule. Sure I've heard of a lot of guys who were really happy to be a father, but didn't really feel the need to be with the kid 24 hours of each passing day because they can't really do anything with the child. I'm paraphrasing here but I'm sure that you get the point.
You need to log in before commenting.
That's not what I said, you need to read properly before actually start disagreeing with my point of view. I never said anything about primary caregiver. I'm pretty 110% ****ing sure that, generally speaking, when a baby is born, the mother has a whole lot more complex emotional bs going on than the male who is also responsible for that same offspring, mostly because of all the hormones. I am not talking about gender roles, I'm talking about biological instinct of most females out there. Now don't get me wrong for I'm not saying that there are no men out there like Will Smith, other than Will Smith, nor am I not saying that there aren't more women out there who completely abandon their children like the average meth-addicted *****.
Now I'm going to close my browser again and eagerly await your response which will obviously make this whole comment sound sexist in some kind of alternative universe.