[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean, I fit the bill exactly for the stereotype.

Future success guaranteed!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm 6'3", white, named James and I've never had any complaints from my lady friends. So where do I fit in with this? Should the government be wary of me simply because I was born this way?

I don't think so, but that wasn't what i was arguing to begin with.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Should I be scrutinized for being white, but "allowed" to excel because I'm tall and devilishly handsome?

Honestly, with your hitting the trifecta, the only thing that would please the PC crowd is for you to commit suicide. That is a joke. I am in no way inferring I would like to see Snow-i commit suicide or any other bodily harm that would inhibit his flying spaghetti monster given positive attributes*

*disclaimer given to satisfy PC crowd

[subego]

Reported.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As always, it's much easier to conclude that someone else is holding you back and much more difficult to employ a little introspect and seek to better one's self in the corporate environment -- if that's really what you want, though I'd argue happiness is likely more important and that women might actually be the more shrewd in this.

You can take lots of jobs and find a pretty recent point in time where the gender pay gap was infinite. You had zero women in that particular job.

That's being held back by someone else, right?

What's the gap where that's no longer the case? What we have right now? That's awfully convenient. When the gap was higher 10 years ago, were you decrying it, or did the gap just happen to be at the right place back then too?

[Shaddim]

There's a lot of truth to the aggressiveness in business theory, the few women I've met who are as "feisty" as their male counterparts make essentially the same money (if not more). It's twice as hard for them because they aren't naturally hardwired to be assholes. My PA's coffee mug says it all, really, "Bitch isn't an insult, it's a title, and I worked hard for it".

[subego]

My coffee mug says "San Francisco".

[subego]

Am I off base in saying a big reason women aren't engineers is they aren't invited into the garage with dad?

I think that (and things like it) has held many girls back.

That seems to be changing*, but when it comes to people getting out of college now and older, we're talking about people who were in the ideal "in the garage with dad" phase last century. How prevalent was encouraging it back then?

It's a self-fulfilling cycle too. No girls in the garage, no girl engineers. No girl engineers, no girls realizing going in the garage is an option. In that situation, it's up to the parents to open up their children's imagination to the possibilities. Society isn't going to do it for them.

That said, I hope it's obvious I don't think you should force girls into the garage. As el chupacabra said, making decisions for oneself is paramount. However, you can't make a decision without being informed, and I see a pretty clear pattern of that information not being distributed neutrally due to perceptions about gender roles.


*For example, I highly doubt Shaddim's daughter won't be in the garage if that's what she wants, and she'll probably want to because at 8 she'll still think her dad is cool.

[Shaddim]

Mine says "HMFIC".

Hell, she's in the garage for a while almost every day, her playpen is literally 20' from the lifts (but behind a wall/partition, for safety reasons). I'm holding out hope she'll be an artist, but if she wants to pursue engineering, or just working on old cars, I'll support it.

[subego]

Steel sculpture. Art meets welding in the garage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

My coffee mug says "San Francisco".

I was wondering where my beloved San Francisco mug went...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can take lots of jobs and find a pretty recent point in time where the gender pay gap was infinite. You had zero women in that particular job.

That's being held back by someone else, right?

What's the gap where that's no longer the case? What we have right now? That's awfully convenient. When the gap was higher 10 years ago, were you decrying it, or did the gap just happen to be at the right place back then too?

I likely would've said incomes are at the places the free market would have them. Distorting that market is not progress. Simply put, nothing is beyond your control. Perhaps women are becoming more effective at seeking opportunities and environments that pay them better. Perhaps they've gotten slightly more aggressive in expecting and seeking higher wages. Perhaps their preferences are evolving steadily away from a work/life balance and are more willing to travel and take risks. Perhaps the stigma of dropping little Johnny off for others to raise is becoming a thing of the past that women are now returning to work, weeks after giving birth. Maybe they're increasingly bolstering their resume' with collegiate credentials equal to and often superior to that of men.

[ghporter]

There is a huge socialization component to the lopsided gender numbers for "hard science" jobs, and for "high power executive" jobs. Society in general develops boys to be mechanically minded, aggressive, and competitive, while girls are socialized to be cooperative, nurturing and competitive in a very different way. There is some evidence that there is an in-born bias in some children to go in either of these two directions, but that evidence is much less compelling than society's impact on children.

As an example, female children who are raised to be independent are more likely to be successful in just about any direction they pursue, while female children who are raised as "delicate flowers" (a friend's label for the girliest of girls) are more likely to be less successful in many jobs that require independent performance, initiative, and networking. A gender bias here? Most likely, since very few boys are raised as "princesses" (or "princes" for that matter). I think this really indicates that a person who is raised to be self sufficient can be more successful in what they pursue than a person who is raised as if they are not self sufficient.

And I think that the folks who are raised to depend on others for many things become dependent in most areas of their lives - and expect the rest of us to bend to their desires - rather than behaving in a more adult manner. To them, if there is an obstacle to their goals, someone else is at fault and they frequently behave as if they have been personally injured by whatever the obstacle is. My wife says such people, (male or female) "need to pull up their big girl panties and move on." I like the sentiment, but I still can't get away with expressing it myself, as I could be incorrectly seen as being "sexist" when I am actually anti-crybaby....

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I likely would've said incomes are at the places the free market would have them. Distorting that market is not progress. Simply put, nothing is beyond your control. Perhaps women are becoming more effective at seeking opportunities and environments that pay them better. Perhaps they've gotten slightly more aggressive in expecting and seeking higher wages. Perhaps their preferences are evolving steadily away from a work/life balance and are more willing to travel and take risks. Perhaps the stigma of dropping little Johnny off for others to raise is becoming a thing of the past that women are now returning to work, weeks after giving birth. Maybe they're increasingly bolstering their resume' with collegiate credentials equal to and often superior to that of men.

When did we cross over from discrimination having an effect to where it's the free market being where it wants to be?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[el chupacabra]

… .

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I came pretty close to posting about this before but didn't in order to keep my topic more focused. You realize the fact there are more women in law school doesn't tell us much? The devils in the details. The kind of degrees many women are acquiring aren't finding much work so they are falling back on law school. I can assure you without even looking up stats that men in law average higher pay due to the fact on average men have the harder degrees such as, engineering+law=patent lawyer, allowing them to climb extremely high on the totem poll.

1. How in god's name does being a patent lawyer "allow them to climb extremely high on the 'totem poll'"? You clearly do not know much about law or law firms.

2. I can assure you that my original post stands: you are taking choices made by women - such as a choice to lead a healthier/balanced lifestyle, which is what ebuddy and others alluded to - and attributing those results to various gender stereotypes - "gossip more", "prefer routine tasks", "prefer taking instructions" blah blah blah.

What you are repeatedly saying is that women are not as capable because of their gender. That is entirely incorrect: they are absolutely as capable in any area where brute strength is not a requirement. But as a whole they may/do have different priorities when it comes to the type of work they wish to do.

[subego]

I think what he's saying is a dual degree lets you climb higher.

[The Final Shortcut]

If you're a lawyer in North America, you almost certainly have at least two degrees (undergrad + law).

[subego]

Those are mostly liberal arts degrees.

IOW, pretty freakin' useless.

[The Final Shortcut]

That makes no sense.

[subego]

I'm an undergrad snob. Does that explain it?

I think a liberal arts degree is pretty much a waste of time and money. I don't feel that way about science degrees.

[The Final Shortcut]

What does that have to do with lawyers? A lawyer is a lawyer - they can practice in any area they want. There is probably no good correlation to undergrad degrees and law school and type of practice, unless you're talking about narrow and very specific (and a small percentage of legal practice) practice areas such as patent agents and/or IP.

There are lawyers with commerce degrees and MBAs practicing residential real estate law. Many business/commerce degrees go into corporate law. Many corporate lawyers do not have business undergrads - they have liberal arts, or science. Lawyers with education undergrads practice maritime law and lawyers with nursing undergrads practice insurance defence. Lawyers with poli sci degrees practice in mergers and acquisitions.

[subego]

Is the lawyer with the nursing degree not worth more than the one with the liberal arts degree?

[The Final Shortcut]

No. Why would they be? They're practicing law, not nursing. That's absurd.

[The Final Shortcut]

Applicable undergrad degrees might be a boon to a lawyer who chooses to practice in that specific field; but it's certainly not a requirement, unless you get into very technical fields such as, again, IP...where you'll find most lawyers have specialized undergrad degrees such as engineering/science. Which makes sense, because you have clients who will want you to converse and understand about their specialized areas.

[subego]

That was the point. Not that it was a requirement, but it makes one more valuable in a specialized field.

The lawyer with the nursing degree gets paid more than an insurance lawyer without the nursing degree.

[The Final Shortcut]

Err, what? No. That is absolutely not what I said.

[subego]

What I'm trying to say is applicable undergrad degrees might be a boon to a lawyer who chooses to practice in that specific field.

[The Final Shortcut]

Why would a lawyer with a nursing degree get paid more than one without? If that lawyer chooses to specialize in health law, for example - and I know three lawyers with nursing degrees, and none of them work in a remotely related field - that does not mean they get paid more than an insurance lawyer. That also does not mean that they would get paid more than a lawyer who has an undergrad in history who also works in health law. Furthermore, why would a lawyer working in health law (or in many other "specialized" or niche areas of law) get paid more than a lawyer with a commerce or history degree working in general corporate law or insurance law? I don't see any indication that's necessarily the case.

Other than the fact that you guys clearly do not know much about lawyering, you're clearly not thinking about your assumptions. Would a doctor with a biochemistry undergrad be a better doctor or make more money than a doctor with a poli sci undergrad? An engineering undergrad? Well hey, the poli sci/engineer grads might need to work a little harder in med school to make up for some knowledge-base deficiencies, but according to you guys the engineering and biochem doctor would make more just because they have "hard" degrees. WTF? That's what med school is for - to teach them how to be doctors; any background knowledge you may have going in a) may assist you if applicable; but b) can be learned as you go if you don't have it.

Same with law school. Of the five smartest law grads I know, three are men and two are women. One of the men had a commerce degree and the other two had political science and philosophy degrees. One of the women had a finance degree and the other had a political science degree. They all work at large corporate law firms, with the exception of the poli sci women who went on to do international something-or-other over in Europe.

Look, honestly, if you're correlating "smartness" with choice of undergrad degree, you're probably in for a surprise. Those at the top in any undergrad degree are universally smart and likely dedicated.

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm trying to say is applicable undergrad degrees might be a boon to a lawyer who chooses to practice in that specific field.

That's great. My point from the very beginning is that "a boon" does not automatically mean getting more money or somehow being more valuable; and that the field being specific does not mean you make more money doing it.

[subego]

Shit. I'd hate to think what the dressing down would be like if I actually disagreed with you.

[The Final Shortcut]

Hah. This thread has clearly gotten under my skin! Sorry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm an undergrad snob. Does that explain it?

I think a liberal arts degree is pretty much a waste of time and money. I don't feel that way about science degrees.

The aren't necessarily a waste of time and money. They help pass the job applicant filters with employers looking for a university degree, and they pave the way to an advanced degree. They also can provide an inside track to various interdisciplinary stuff, depending on what the degree is in.

I think what you find to be a waste of time and money is being a non-resourceful individual getting a liberal arts degree, you can make all sorts of degrees work in your favor if you are savvy.

[andi*pandi]

Hi. I'm a woman. Let me introduce myself. I work, don't gossip, have never seduced anyone in the workplace (or been tempted), make more money than my husband, and find el c's comments incredibly insulting. I blame my current success levels less on my femininity, or lack of masculinity, and more on my introvert personality. I know plenty of women who are outgoing and ambitious.

I don't know what kind of women you work with, or which woman in your life distorted your reality perception field... but come on.

[subego]

There's definitely differences across industries.

As I may have already said, the women I've worked with have been ass-kickers. They're going into a boy's club environment where physical strength and mass are advantages. Most of them act like they have something to prove, and sadly, much of the time they do.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Hi. I'm a woman. Let me introduce myself. I work, don't gossip, have never seduced anyone in the workplace (or been tempted), make more money than my husband, and find el c's comments incredibly insulting. I blame my current success levels less on my femininity, or lack of masculinity, and more on my introvert personality. I know plenty of women who are outgoing and ambitious.

I don't know what kind of women you work with, or which woman in your life distorted your reality perception field... but come on.

He doesn't speak for all of us here. Certainly not me. Apologies that you were insulted, it gets kinda ridiculous in this place sometimes. I definitely didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into this, While you're here, can you ask the mod for the PWL to close this thread? I was hoping this conversation would turn into a discussion on government roles and civilian oversight (like a jury thats in the room when the materials are in the room) but those expectations were obviously high to sustain for long and I think its time to old yeller this thread since multiple people are being insulted.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Just throwing this out there, should I or anyone find it incredibly insulting, or sexist if people accuse me of getting raises, promotions, or going farther just because Im a man? Or should i find it incredibly insulting when Im accused of sexism because I hired or promoted the male lawyer with the engineering background rather than the women lawyer with the psychology background? Becuase this is whats happening all day, theres a strong vibe out there that our hiring and promotion choices have no practical merit, it's shown in the first article in the thread and in the responses in this forum.

Yes, but if you are trying to paint some sort of equivalency here this would be a false equivalency.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Just throwing this out there, should I or anyone find it incredibly insulting, or sexist if people accuse me of getting raises, promotions, or going farther just because Im a man?

What the hell are you talking about? For 99% of our modern industrial era it has been a statistical fact that you will get raises, promotions, and go farther just because you are a man, even though a women may be equally (or moreso) qualified. Now you would like to feel insulted just because someone has pointed out a simple truth?

Or should i find it incredibly insulting when Im accused of sexism because I hired or promoted the male lawyer with the engineering background rather than the women lawyer with the psychology background?

You find it insulting? You? What in the name of **** is insulting to you about that scenario? It's not insulting: it's blatantly sexist if that man is not a more qualified lawyer than the woman - which is not a given based on his choice of undergrad, which has little if nothing to do with his qualifications as a lawyer - and it's also a statutory human rights violation in many/most developed countries (e.g. in Canada): discrimination solely on the basis of sex.

You have already admitted that you believe women to have inherent qualities that make them less successful in the workplace and/or business. I mean, I don't even...what other definition of sexism do you adhere to? Am I the only other guy in this ****ing place who's remotely offended by this shit? Because honestly, I feel like I am in an alternate universe right now - it's ****ing weird.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

Hi. I'm a woman. Let me introduce myself. I work, don't gossip, have never seduced anyone in the workplace (or been tempted), make more money than my husband, and find el c's comments incredibly insulting. I blame my current success levels less on my femininity, or lack of masculinity, and more on my introvert personality. I know plenty of women who are outgoing and ambitious.

I don't know what kind of women you work with, or which woman in your life distorted your reality perception field... but come on.

Hello woman. I am a man. Let me introduce myself. I work pretty hard, I gossip a little, I have seduced a woman in the workplace before and it was great fun at the time, I do pretty well but still make less money than my wife, who is much more outgoing and ambitious and talented and successful in the corporate world than I am, and also find el c's comments incredibly insulting. I blame my current success levels on the outgoing, ambitious and highly competent and talented women that work/compete with me.

Oh, and amongst my personal friends and peers of my generation (20s to mid-30s), the women are generally more successful and ambitious than the men. In general they are just as outgoing, they are better networkers, they are fantastic in the workplace, and they are more efficient and dedicated at their jobs.

Those are my personal experiences, of course. But since I'm the only guy with positive anecdotes to share, I figure I might as well put them on record.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

When did we cross over from discrimination having an effect to where it's the free market being where it wants to be?

For whatever reason, we have to assume that a societal phenomena must be the product of malice aforethought; discrimination. Those who are more aggressive in seeking higher wages will more often get them. Those who are driven to earn more will suffer a less ideal work/life balance and will likely earn more. Those more willing to relocate and/or travel will likely earn more. As long as these factors continue to show favor among more men than women, men will likely earn more and it has nothing to do with a cigar-chomping chauvinist environment. These factors come at a cost or benefit, but they are well within our control. That is the market being where it is. You want to help women? Let's quit talking about things beyond their control.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Hi. I'm a woman. Let me introduce myself. I work, don't gossip, have never seduced anyone in the workplace (or been tempted), make more money than my husband, and find el c's comments incredibly insulting. I blame my current success levels less on my femininity, or lack of masculinity, and more on my introvert personality. I know plenty of women who are outgoing and ambitious.

I don't know what kind of women you work with, or which woman in your life distorted your reality perception field... but come on.

Do you prefer to work for men or women?

[The Final Shortcut]

I do not care. And I do not know why it should matter. I have had male and female asshole bosses and male and female great bosses.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I definitely didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into this,

Well, that's half the adventure of the PWL.

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Am I the only other guy in this ****ing place who's remotely offended by this shit? Because honestly, I feel like I am in an alternate universe right now - it's ****ing weird.

It's hilariously stereotypical. I was curious to see him "clarify" but I'm not sure I caught it.

[osiris]

Just want to let you know that we're all counting on you.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's hilariously stereotypical. I was curious to see him "clarify" but I'm not sure I caught it.

Yes: "it is not meant to be insulting and does not insinuate gender inferiority. Don't blame me: women just have these inherent qualities that make them less desirable in the workplace".

The part you bolded isn't meant to be insulting. Most those actions have neutral connotation. It's not meant to insinuate gender inferiority. Yeah it's pointing out traits in women that can be weakness in the workplace. Men have their own share of very real, stereotypical weaknesses in various aspects of life. I'm not going to pretend for a second that everybody is 100% equal and the same in everything with the only differences being what we can see externally. I realize I opened up the perfect chance for someone to do what liberals do best... laugh, point, and scream the prejudice card from the mountain tops... A perfect example of what often happens to those caught discriminating or even thought to be discriminating.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you prefer to work for men or women?

If I'm unattached, men. If I'm attached, it doesn't matter. I'm lucky in that I'm pretty reactive in the sex department, so I'm hot for what I've got. If I was a p-hound, that would likely be different.


Wanting to work for and with men when I'm unattached really irritates me, but I've got to call it like it is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For whatever reason, we have to assume that a societal phenomena must be the product of malice aforethought; discrimination. Those who are more aggressive in seeking higher wages will more often get them. Those who are driven to earn more will suffer a less ideal work/life balance and will likely earn more. Those more willing to relocate and/or travel will likely earn more. As long as these factors continue to show favor among more men than women, men will likely earn more and it has nothing to do with a cigar-chomping chauvinist environment. These factors come at a cost or benefit, but they are well within our control. That is the market being where it is. You want to help women? Let's quit talking about things beyond their control.

I feel I must be misunderstanding, because this strikes me as setting up an excluded middle, as well as not answering my question.

[subego]

Part of the reason I have trouble believing we're post-sexism are things like us using the fundamental building blocks of language in a sexist manner.

Start teaching kids "they" is also a gender neutral singular pronoun (because, ya know... it ****ing is), and we can talk about being post-sexism. Right now, we're not even close.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you prefer to work for men or women?

I don't know, really, and not sure why it matters. The field I work in is slightly more woman-oriented, and I have had more female bosses than male. My only complaint about the male was that he smelled and didn't keep the bathroom clean (I bought soap and toilet paper on more than one occasion). Female bosses have ranged from perfectly nice efficient people, to sweet psychopaths. I think the psychopath thing though was more of a "small business owner little kingdom entitlement power disorder" though, and not silly things like PMS or feminine jealousy or worries that I would steal her man.

I don't think we need to close it, thanks Snow-i.

el C, If someone attacks you personally about your job or raise, then maybe it could be insulting. As insulting as people whispering that a woman could only get ahead on her back. Where I work we don't even discuss each other's pay, so I have no idea who's got a raise or not. It's very mysterious, and HR likes it that way.

But look at the statistics, probably based on our tax returns etc. Do you honestly believe, that a woman with the same qualifications as a man, deserves less pay?

"I hired or promoted the male lawyer with the engineering background rather than the women lawyer with the psychology background?"

Was the job for an engineering firm? Is the law different? Have they both done their jobs well? Do you go golfing with the male lawyer? Out for beer?

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by subego 

Part of the reason I have trouble believing we're post-sexism are things like us using the fundamental building blocks of language in a sexist manner.

Start teaching kids "they" is also a gender neutral singular pronoun (because, ya know... it ****ing is), and we can talk about being post-sexism. Right now, we're not even close.

I think you're doing it wrong.

Sexism is not about acknowledging gender. It is about discrimination or prejudice based on gender; and most particularly, based on gender stereotypes, for which el chupacabra provided a most convenient example.

[subego]

I think it's much deeper than that.

If you grow up thinking the default singular is one gender, that's teaching you there's something better about that gender.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel I must be misunderstanding, because this strikes me as setting up an excluded middle, as well as not answering my question.

The questions tend to mount while leaving me disappointed that my perspective was all, but entirely ignored. Which question is that; that there are jobs in which zero women were able to work and whether or not that's an example of them being held back?

Which jobs? At what point in time? I mean, there was a time when the majority of women were perfectly content with traditional roles. Men get to go off to war, build and roof houses, electrical grids, coal mines, etc... are these the jobs you're talking about? Don't the women of history have any say in this? It's as if you believe you have to trap-door me into acknowledging institutional discrimination. Of course there is -- as any institution of humankind. There is discrimination against overweight people, people with severe acne, short people, etc ... but IMO this is agenda-oriented thinking, not solution-oriented reasoning.

Men work longer hours. Isn't that worth more? Men are statistically, more financially literate which includes "speaking the language". Isn't that worth a few more bucks? They're more aggressive in seeking higher pay, more willing to travel and/or relocate, with a work/life balance generally more advantageous to the employer. Are none of these worth dollars?

I get concerned when I see folks repeatedly give these solid factors the short-shrift in favor of fashionable crises we can't hope to measure or begin to address without more legislative folly that only exacerbates problems; the result of agenda-oriented thinking.