[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Women who are passed up, fail to realize what they accuse men of all the time; the fact that men are more ambitious, power hungry, nerdily obsessed with work.

I'm so obsessed with my new job that I keep forgetting I have someone waiting for me at home. If I was single, I'd be at work fourteen hours a day, just because I enjoy being there so much.

Men are not the only humans who are ambitious and power-hungry. I've been at this job for a month and already have several VPs interested in bringing me on with a much more challenging, higher-paying job as soon as they can (company policy is to wait twelve months before making an internal move to a different position).

Men put effort into entertaining other people at work. When men are called sluts fag etc they brush it off turning it into a joke.

Huh. So do I. In fact, I put so much effort into entertaining my coworkers that it gets me into trouble sometimes. I'm more offensive than most frat boys if in the right company.

Women prefer routine jobs.

Really?

They do what they're asked, nothing more nothing less, gossiping, creating mortal enemies with other women who looked at them cross.

Wow, you learn something new every day! THAT must be why at my last two jobs, I took on multiple responsibilities way beyond what was in the original job description! Yeah, I guess it's cause I'm lazy and won't do more than what's asked of me.

Their demeanor is often a robot like professionalism that rarely turns off.

I guess that's why every chief officer and administrator at the USDA had me on speed dial to handle all of their IT problems. My unceasing robotic personality was just SUCH a kick.

Then they get pregnant. The last one? 4 times in a row! She's on the books as an employee who's rarely seen, and can't be replaced by law. And when 1 of them is sick, she calls in sick. Talk about wild cards businesses fear.

Except the women who don't get pregnant by choice, and the women who work in tandem with their husbands to take care of family and business. One of my colleagues has two pre-K children. She works nights, her husband works days, and she hasn't missed a day of work except when she got vicious food poisoning.

Women are less socially tuned for the workplace. Which might be attributable to the fact that when they had problems as kids others solved them?

Hold up. Where the hell was the problem-solving fairy when I was a kid?! Nobody told me that having tits and a vagina meant that someone else would handle all my problems! If I had known that, I totes would have called the secret women's club's 800 number the first time I was verbally abused as a kid.

They didn't need to learn how to make friends which would later become the rubbing-elbows skill, because friends came easy to them.

I have four yearbooks of evidence to the contrary.

Women are less prone to bullying.

Tell that to the bitch who punched me in the face in high school.

I don't think my childhood was anything exceptional so if most guys grew up like me - When us guys couldn't solve a problem, we got the shit kicked out of us until we learned to solve it or brush it off. Guys are verbally abused, kicked below the belt, punched in the face (or stabbed), then thrown in the deep end;

When I couldn't solve a problem, I was taught to do everything in my power to solve it myself. Nobody beat the shit out of me - my parents weren't that type - but the verbal beat-downs I got as a kid were enough to push me to fend for myself.

women are given a kiddie pool of confidence boosting programs and free tutoring from all the nerdy guys in college; and don't realize they're promoted less because they never learned to swim.

Last time I checked, I'm the one tutoring the nerdy guys in college, at work, and out of work. At my last three jobs I've had more technical skill and knowledge than anyone else on my team.

But that's just because of that double X chromosome, amirite?

There is a flip side. While it's easier for men to be promoted; It's easier for women to get introductory jobs (30k) out of college than for men. ie clerical jobs favor women for the reasons I cited above, even though many men would love the option of one these starter jobs.

Which is why all those men are gunning for those jobs. Or maybe it's that they feel entitled to good jobs because of the nutsack hangin' out between their legs.

In your discrimination list; with the exception of rape, none of these have any serious life altering consequences. These are just "brush-off" items that don't destine people to a life of poverty, or prevent people from reaching goals.

I'm not going to waste my time on the rest of this giant pile of steaming vomit you posted.

I have to work twice as hard as my male peers because of asswipes like you. I have to go into every new job, every meeting, every situation with the assumption that at least half the men in the room believe I got my job to meet a women-in-STEM quota, that I'm an emotional female who's just going to get knocked up, and that I don't know what I'm doing. I have to go guns blazing every day to make sure that my coworkers, my superiors, and my customers know that I absolutely know what the hell I'm talking about and that I'm more than qualified to do my job, and that it has nothing to do with my breasts or my vag and everything to do with my intelligence, my drive, and my motivation to make myself something more than a baby machine and a housewife.

I was fired from a job because I worked on an all-male team who believes everything you posted here. To them, a woman like me didn't belong in IT, and they did everything they could to get me fired. They were threatened by the idea that a woman was smarter than them, so in typical man fashion they metaphorically beat the shit out of me until I had to leave.

I don't believe racial minorities experience the kind of discrimination that bleeding hearts insist goes on. Spend one day in any federal building in Washington, and you'll see hordes of black people with permanent, high-paying jobs where they can sit on their ass and do nothing all day, get paid for it, get a mandatory raise every year, and be guaranteed a job for thirty years because that's how things are done in the government.

However, thanks to dicks like you, my friend, women STILL face discrimination in the workplace on a daily basis. As long as you're alive and have buddies who believe this same line of crap, women like me will continue to have no choice but to work their asses off to gain any credibility in the workplace.

Thanks for that. Now go die in a fire.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I don't know, really, and not sure why it matters.

While a 56% majority of executive women believe it doesn't matter, 32% of them prefer working for a man. Too often we ignore a whole lot of women when talking about -- women and I've been framing this as agenda-oriented thinking over solution-oriented reasoning. You see this in discussions around abortion with folks championing women's rights, failing to recognize that women have stronger feelings against it than men.

In short, I just don't think there's any reason to ignore the choices women have made that some might argue, are actually much more shrewd and thoughtful than the choices men have made. It might cost a few bucks.

[andi*pandi]

Men went off to war, and women proved they could work in the factories and do the job. And now women can go off to war if they choose. Please take off your rose-colored glasses about how lovely history was. A lot of women back then had little choice about a trade, and if widowed, were left without a way to earn income.

Also pretty certain that anybody who choooses the financial industry would have the same access to financial knowledge. Yet male financial advisors make more:

Jobs with the Widest Pay Gaps between Men and Women - 24/7 Wall St.

These jobs aren't those where the physical strength of men would be an advantage, there's no reason for it. Men work overtime? The jobs in that list are usually salaried. Any reason why a male insurance agent has an advantage over a woman, and a woman only makes 62% of what a man does? He can lift heavy boxes of papers? He can push a button on a phone better? Type? Please.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Men went off to war, and women proved they could work in the factories and do the job. And now women can go off to war if they choose. Please take off your rose-colored glasses about how lovely history was. A lot of women back then had little choice about a trade, and if widowed, were left without a way to earn income.

When did I give you the impression that history was, in any way lovely? I only offered the perspective that many have no problem with traditional roles and that discrimination isn't measurable and therefore, not solution-oriented. There is all manner of discrimination among men and women of all shapes and sizes.

Also pretty certain that anybody who choooses the financial industry would have the same access to financial knowledge. Yet male financial advisors make more:
Jobs with the Widest Pay Gaps between Men and Women - 24/7 Wall St.

These jobs aren't those where the physical strength of men would be an advantage, there's no reason for it. Men work overtime? The jobs in that list are usually salaried. Any reason why a male insurance agent has an advantage over a woman, and a woman only makes 62% of what a man does? He can lift heavy boxes of papers? He can push a button on a phone better? Type? Please.

Are these industries somehow above the statistical fray I offered earlier of men working longer hours, more aggressively seeking higher wages, more willing to travel and/or relocate, and opting for a work/life balance more advantageous to the company? Salary doesn't mean everyone comes and goes at the same time, right? You don't think these things matter when you're sitting in front of your boss for an eval?

As a female executive, would you not consider any of the above factors when determining one's pay?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's as if you believe you have to trap-door me into acknowledging institutional discrimination.

ebuddy, I'm not sure you make fair allowance for Internet debate to be often confusing, and have many levels of unclear semantics.

I tried to explain what you were saying as I understood it, and said it was very possible I misunderstood.

I'm not going to apologize for that, nor am I going to brook accusations that's playing "gotcha".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

ebuddy, I'm not sure you make fair allowance for Internet debate to be often confusing, and have many levels of unclear semantics.

I tried to explain what you were saying as I understood it, and said it was very possible I misunderstood.

I'm not going to apologize for that, nor am I going to brook accusations that's playing "gotcha".

This wouldn't be the first time we've had a disconnect. At some point I wonder if folks are reading more into my posts than of them. A way of taking issue with someone regardless of whether or not they've said anything disagreeable.

[subego]

I always try not just to read the words, but get what the person is trying to say. As you said, read of it and not into it.

When I feel I'm unable to do that I ask for clarification, which is what I did.

At least, that's what you were supposed to read of "I may be mistaken here".


If I wanted to take issue with you just to take issue, this clarification discussion would have no value to me. On the contrary, it's hugely valuable. I want to discuss things with you. I can't do that if we're butting heads.

[ghporter]

There is plenty of evidence that institutional discrimination against people due to their sex does exist. Some institutions are rife with it. Look at the nursing profession: if you're male and don't want to work in an ER or ICU, you have an uphill battle ahead to get into almost any other area of practice.

The real question isn't whether or not institutional discrimination exists, but rather if intentional institutional discrimination exists. It should not, but sometimes it's hard to see the very fine line between habits and antiquated policies and active efforts to suppress specific individuals or groups of individuals. Fixing obsolete ways of doing things makes institutions better. It's when someone uses his or her position of authority to implement his/her own personal feelings that institutions get into trouble, because such individuals tend to be in significant positions of authority and even their bosses don't want to look like they're overreacting for fear a theoretically valuable manager (or higher) might quit over an investigation.

[ebuddy]

To sum up:

If I were using this thread to scout management potential, I'd have been down to ghporter first, and perhaps Osiris and snow-i. Unless of course I were to conclude that my criteria of sober analysis and demonstrable business acumen were entirely unrealistic among this pool of candidates and just do the job myself.

I don't know, are these all men? It really doesn't matter of course, it just worked out that way.

[andi*pandi]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I was too busy in the kitchen making a sandwich.

[shifuimam]

And babies. Don't forget that you have to make babies, too.

[Shaddim]

Oh pu-leeease.



I was the one "forced" to contribute towards making the baby, it's a good thing I fell in love with the little nipper. Plus I cook more often than anyone else in this house, by an order of magnitude.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I was too busy in the kitchen making a sandwich.

What's that? Did you say something? I'm too busy being a rich white ass hole to care about anyone about myself.

***
Do I really think that those who oppose my OP viewpoint hate me because I'm white?. Of course not. Look, I get where you're coming from on being insulted but give ebuddy a chance - I'm not sure he's said anything that doesn't at least warrant further exploration before calling us all sexists. This is the PWL. If there's some part of ebuddy's post you find insulting, at least attempt to clarify it with him as I'm quite certain his aim is not to be sexist or offensive.

[subego]

[subego]

Also...

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To sum up:

If I were using this thread to scout management potential, I'd have been down to ghporter first, and perhaps Osiris and snow-i. Unless of course I were to conclude that my criteria of sober analysis and demonstrable business acumen were entirely unrealistic among this pool of candidates and just do the job myself.

I don't know, are these all men? It really doesn't matter of course, it just worked out that way.

If along the way I gave you the impression I was talking about was intentional discrimination, then that impression was mistaken.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, I was too busy in the kitchen making a sandwich.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And babies. Don't forget that you have to make babies, too.

This is awesome.

For what it's worth to you; you two are some of the best people here. Seriously. That last one was a dig, but totally in fun. I was raised by women and I ain't heavy, I'm your brother.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut

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.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

You're making statements that everyone knows to be false... If I had said "stats show men with poli sci degrees tend to get paid less than men with engineering degrees", what ___ism or __ist would you have attributed it to then? The market has already determined a monetary value for the various undergrad degrees. This is indisputable fact. You're essentially saying none of that matters once someone gets a law degree.

...yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying: the "monetary value" for the various undergrad degrees does not generally apply. That is because the person is no longer doing those engineering or poli sci jobs. Why is this so hard to understand?

That person is being paid to work as a lawyer: their fees (and salary) will depending on their legal experience and value to the client. It is a general rule that lawyer's fees don't adjust depending on your undergrad. I have a science degree, and two friends have an accounting and education degree, respectively: we all started at the same salary charging the same fees, because we have the same experience as a lawyer. At some point, our undergrads may help influence our value to certain clients...but that in no way means an engineering undergrad is necessary to becoming a Toyota litigator than, say, an education undergrad.

I have stated once and I will state again: does a doctor's salary change depending on whether they previously had a biochem, engineering, or hell, even a law degree?

I'd prefer to hire someone who was educated and also worked in the field since they would be more likely to have certain standardized schematics memorized.

Sigh.

Do you see that bolded part there? That's the important part. I'm not disputing that an engineering degree can be very useful to a lawyer, in the right situation. I'm saying that this situation is confined to narrow and particular fields; unless the work is in that particular narrow field, having that degree is not really that useful. You are now talking about needing a lawyer who understands very specific schematics: but when you originally made your statement on male/female lawyers, you differentiated solely on the basis of their undergrad. Big difference: you have shifted your own goalposts. And secondly, just because you work in that field does not mean you get paid any more than a poli sci undergrad working in mergers and acquisitions down the hall.

BTW you still haven't answered the question as to why you think stats show a 5:1 gender gap in current engineering grads.

I'm the one who pointed out that gender gap has actually increased. There are less women in engineering now than there were before (at least in Canada).

I don't have an answer for why that is. Do you? I see lots of women working 60+ hours a week, and only a couple of them are engineers. Perhaps you have a theory why becoming doctors and lawyers is much more attractive to women? I suppose it is because the work is so much more routine and less demanding, right?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is awesome.

For what it's worth to you; you two are some of the best people here. Seriously. That last one was a dig, but totally in fun. I was raised by women and I ain't heavy, I'm your brother.

glad you appreciate the humor! I couldn't resist.

I was away part of the weekend and couldn't respond in full; will try to get back to the last page comments after this next meeting...