Gender Disparity

[Livewire]

Nearly a century after the Women's Suffrage movement, do you think women and men are any closer to being equal in today's society? Are they equal politically, economically, or socially?

If not, what do you propose we do to fix the gender disparities in the workplace and other fields? Defend and back up your choices.


Discuss.

 

[doesn't matter]

If not, what do you propose we do to fix the gender disparities in the workplace and other fields? Defend and back up your choices.

If you support any such programs, like AA, then that means you actually believe that women (and minorities) are not equal and thus need a leg-up to match "privileged" groups. You are prejudging them as being unable to attain things for themselves, you bigot.

But if you truly thought all were equal, you would not support such programs at all.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

If you support any such programs, like AA, then that means you actually believe that women (and minorities) are not equal and thus need a leg-up to match "privileged" groups. You are prejudging them as being unable to attain things for themselves, you bigot.

But if you truly thought all were equal, you would not support such programs at all.

AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? What minority do they cater to? Alcoholics are a recognized minority group now? EDIT: Toujours corrected me. So, nevermind this.

Socially, I don't think we'll ever get to perfect equality. But, we'll continue to get better. Personally, I think that if you can afford it as a family, one person should stay at home with your children. I recognize that's not for everyone. However, I would have no problems being that person. For probably the majority of men though, that's not the case. The gap may tighten overtime, but I don't think we'll ever have an equal amount of men as women at home or even full role reversal.

Women also need to have equal pay. They still don't in most cases.

 

[Oryx]

AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? What minority do they cater to? Alcoholics are a recognized minority group now?

Affirmative Action.

If you support any such programs, like AA, then that means you actually believe that women (and minorities) are not equal and thus need a leg-up to match "privileged" groups. You are prejudging them as being unable to attain things for themselves.

But if you truly thought all were equal, you would not support such programs at all.

Or that there's much, much more to the social and economic makeup of the country than who's objectively the best at something. If that was how it is, and every person received an equal education, then yes, it would be insulting to think that people are not all on equal footing just because one didn't pull themselves up far enough. However, that's not the case in most places. Jobs are decided by a hair at times with so many people needing them, and even people that don't actively hate women can subconsciously think that a man just "looks" stronger and therefore is more likely to close a deal or get the client or whatever. Enough people thinking that and you've got yourself a male-dominated industry, not because women are less talented but because on equal footing in everything except gender, people would be more likely to pick the male over the female.

It's not a matter of people that actively hate women. Although I'm sure those people still exist, they're not common anymore and aren't a real issue in the general workplace. Instead it's about the subconscious judgment.

Your statement "You are prejudging them as being unable to attain things for themselves" is true, but not in the way you meant it. It's not a judgment that they're not talented enough or smart enough or good enough to get what they want - it's a judgment that society perceives different genders as inherently "better" at certain jobs, and therefore pressures out women that want to work in that field and chooses men over women with equal qualifications. Women are less able to attain many things, no matter how hard they work.

 

[Livewire]

If you support any such programs, like AA, then that means you actually believe that women (and minorities) are not equal and thus need a leg-up to match "privileged" groups.

The United States ranks 67th out of 134 nations in regards to Women's participation in just elected office alone. Link

 

[Esper]

Things aren't equal in a lot of places. In America, for instance, only 1/6 of our Congress is made up of women. If we had more women making decisions about things (in government, in business, etc.) we might be able to make things more equal since we would more likely have people who understood problems women face and what could be done about them. For a great example of what I mean there was that panel in Congress that was to talk about contraception and not a single woman was allowed to speak as an expert because the only woman who was supposed to speak was turned away by the man who organized the panel since he didn't think she was qualified to speak. As a consequence you get people who don't understand things from a woman's perspective talking with other people who don't about things that disproportionally affect women (since it's women who pay the lion's share for birth control). It's these women-specific obstacles that need to be taken out of the way. And of course education is always helpful.

 

[Gothitelle.]

I think we are somewhat close to being equal. As for pro-equality, as I said on another forum, I am a masculinist. I do believe that there is unfairness that needs to be addressed when it comes to genders. Like for example, when it comes to custody cases, the system evaluate the situation in a fair way instead of automatically leaning toward the mother in some states. Or they need to really try to not make it look like female on male abuse is okay or funny or let women get off easily for abusing their male partners. But that's only a few issues. there's many more. But yeah, it isn't bad that I'm a girl and I'm for men's rights, because I think their issues are being pushed to the side for women's issues. In short, I'm pro-equality.

 

[doesn't matter]

AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? What minority do they cater to? Alcoholics are a recognized minority group now? EDIT: Toujours corrected me. So, nevermind this.

Women also need to have equal pay. They still don't in most cases.

hahaha it's cool. I shouldn't have made the assumption.

I believe the figure you are referring to is merely an average. In some places and for some demographics, women actually get paid more than men.

If you are so concerned about the pay-gap, shouldn't you also be concerned about the death-gap? 94% of all workplace deaths are men. That is because men more often do work the more dangerous (and thus, better paying) jobs. I find this unbalance unjust however - the death rate should be 50-50.

Another thing about the pay-gap is that women take more time off for family at the cost of their career, as men do not, hence why they do not progress as far. I've actually seen surveys that show women who don't sacrifice their career for family wind up making even more than men on average, so again, there's another gap we have to rectify!

Or that there's much, much more to the social and economic makeup of the country than who's objectively the best at something. If that was how it is, and every person received an equal education, then yes, it would be insulting to think that people are not all on equal footing just because one didn't pull themselves up far enough. However, that's not the case in most places. Jobs are decided by a hair at times with so many people needing them, and even people that don't actively hate women can subconsciously think that a man just "looks" stronger and therefore is more likely to close a deal or get the client or whatever. Enough people thinking that and you've got yourself a male-dominated industry, not because women are less talented but because on equal footing in everything except gender, people would be more likely to pick the male over the female.

It's not a matter of people that actively hate women. Although I'm sure those people still exist, they're not common anymore and aren't a real issue in the general workplace. Instead it's about the subconscious judgment.

Your statement "You are prejudging them as being unable to attain things for themselves" is true, but not in the way you meant it. It's not a judgment that they're not talented enough or smart enough or good enough to get what they want - it's a judgment that society perceives different genders as inherently "better" at certain jobs, and therefore pressures out women that want to work in that field and chooses men over women with equal qualifications. Women are less able to attain many things, no matter how hard they work.

So you support forcing employers to hire people they don't want? What business is it of anyone? If a company passes on a potentially good employee because of their prejudices, that that is only their loss. It's none of my concern at al.

Are you implying then that people subconcsiously hate women? :P

And you are enforcing that belief of society by supporting such programs.

The United States ranks 67th out of 134 nations in regards to Women's participation in just elected office alone. Link

So what? There are no restrictions on women when it comes to politics. If they don't represent more of the population it's either because they don't put their hand up as often to do so or no one wants to elect them.

 

[Gothitelle.]

So what? There are no restrictions on women when it comes to politics. If they don't represent more of the population it's either because they don't put their hand up as often to do so or no one wants to elect them.

Yes this is true as well. For me, I will vote for whoever as long as they are conservative, man or woman.

Nonetheless, they are no restrictions on women in politics or anywhere to be exact. There's some who are making this a bigger deal than what it really is.

 

[twocows]

How about instead of favoring any one group, we just deal with people based on merit?

I know, I know; nobody ever likes solutions that make sense.

 

[Alley Cat]

eThe only thing that needs to happen to get more women leaders is for more women leaders to actually step up to the plate and do the work. There are plenty of ignorant people in the world, not to mention in the U.S., but it is the same as with most of any people have been oppressed like this, they just need to keep working at it, and they need to go against the grain despite whatever it will bring unto them. Simple really. If you want change, put the people who can make that change in a position where it would be favorable for them(and this isn't that hard to do if you know which feathers to ruffle)and it will happen.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

How about instead of favoring any one group, we just deal with people based on merit?

I know, I know; nobody ever likes solutions that make sense.

I'd be totally okay with it. Not sure how you'd prove it though.

 

[Oryx]

If you are so concerned about the pay-gap, shouldn't you also be concerned about the death-gap? 94% of all workplace deaths are men. That is because men more often do work the more dangerous (and thus, better paying) jobs. I find this unbalance unjust however - the death rate should be 50-50.

Just pointing out that the better-paying jobs aren't more dangerous. They're desk jobs. Manual labor jobs that have a lot of danger involved are generally lower-paying (which I personally think is really really dumb).

So you support forcing employers to hire people they don't want? What business is it of anyone? If a company passes on a potentially good employee because of their prejudices, that that is only their loss. It's none of my concern at al.

Are you implying then that people subconcsiously hate women? :P

And you are enforcing that belief of society by supporting such programs.

I'm implying (well not anymore since I'm outright saying it) that often for the same position, a woman would be passed over in favor of a man, because often hiring practices have a subjective aspect where two candidates are equal. This goes both ways, though - in a sales position, for example, I feel it would go the opposite way because people would see a woman and assume automatically that they would be better at the position than a man. In the higher-paying corporate jobs, however, the unconscious stereotype of men being more assertive than women can easily tip a decision one way. It's not a matter of hating women subconsciously, it's a matter of the subconscious stereotype that men are just better at many higher-paying jobs than women are. Part of the problem is the lack of women in those jobs; it strengthens the stereotype, because then people can point to it and say "more men are in this field because they're better at it", therefore hiring less women and continuing to think men are better at it because it's male-dominated.

How about instead of favoring any one group, we just deal with people based on merit?

I know, I know; nobody ever likes solutions that make sense.

If only it was that easy. :( Unfortunately, society makes things much more difficult.

 

[Gothitelle.]

How about instead of favoring any one group, we just deal with people based on merit?

I know, I know; nobody ever likes solutions that make sense.

When it comes to gender equality debates, it typically favors women. :[

which is why I brought up men's issues in one post. It's hard.

 

[doesn't matter]

Just pointing out that the better-paying jobs aren't more dangerous. They're desk jobs. Manual labor jobs that have a lot of danger involved are generally lower-paying (which I personally think is really really dumb).

I'm implying (well not anymore since I'm outright saying it) that often for the same position, a woman would be passed over in favor of a man, because often hiring practices have a subjective aspect where two candidates are equal. This goes both ways, though - in a sales position, for example, I feel it would go the opposite way because people would see a woman and assume automatically that they would be better at the position than a man. In the higher-paying corporate jobs, however, the unconscious stereotype of men being more assertive than women can easily tip a decision one way. It's not a matter of hating women subconsciously, it's a matter of the subconscious stereotype that men are just better at many higher-paying jobs than women are. Part of the problem is the lack of women in those jobs; it strengthens the stereotype, because then people can point to it and say "more men are in this field because they're better at it", therefore hiring less women and continuing to think men are better at it because it's male-dominated.

You're right, and I was hasty in making that statement. However, there are plenty of high paying jobs that are dangerous (like mining), that women just do not work in.

Now while I would rather we have as little death as possible, I still would like to see an effort to address this incredible inequality in regards to deaths in the workplace. Hell, there's also the fact that on average, men die earlier than women - when are we going to fix that?!

I'm afraid I cannot really agree with your assertions. There are plenty of women who are in higher-paying corporate jobs (and they get paid more than men in those positions). Reason why they are there is because they didn't sacrifice their career for family, or at least had an immense amount of support in doing so. See, you make the claim that everything is the fault of the employer, but working women make decisions too that can affect the progression of their career, and one such decision is motherhood. Having both is ridiculously difficult.

So do you believe that men and women are the same? Anyone can feel free to answer this question btw.

 

[Gothitelle.]

So do you believe that men and women are the same? Anyone can feel free to answer this question btw.

Eh, this is a hard question to answer. I mean, I would say yes when it comes to rights. But at the same time, I view men as being more responsible.

 

[Esper]

So do you believe that men and women are the same? Anyone can feel free to answer this question btw.

From an employment perspective, yes. Men and women are both equally capable to doing jobs.

I believe the figure you are referring to is merely an average. In some places and for some demographics, women actually get paid more than men.

Good on them, but for the most part women still make less.



Even if it's true (and I don't know that it is) that women in high-up corporate jobs make more than their male counterparts it would still be true that most people in those jobs would be men and if you were to look at most corporations you'd see mostly men at the top.

 

[Livewire]

It may differ in other countries, but in the lens of the American workplace, gender (along with race and sexual orientation) is still a big deal. Women make less, and work roughly the same or more than men. Not to mention, women representation in politics is far behind what it is in other developed countries. Yet another example of how America laggs behind Europe in domestic and social issues.