zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 4, 2014 10:37:13 GMT -5
I told my DD that my job worked for me but I always resented the low pay for the job. She took a lesson from me and is doing something she will enjoy but that will pay her very well. I couldn't be more pleased or proud. Wish I'd instilled more of that in DS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:22:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 10:38:43 GMT -5
you should be demanding a salary more commensurate with your position and your performance
easier said than done.....as my DW says
how do you say that without sounding egotistical, or bitchy
but there is where men and women differ.......
men generally dont care if people see them as aggressive or egotistical
women do care.....they WANT AND NEED to be liked
so can you set aside that need to be liked to get what you want?
that is the question for most women.....and sadly, for a lot of them, it is NOT in their personality to do so
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2014 10:45:47 GMT -5
you should be demanding a salary more commensurate with your position and your performance easier said than done.....as my DW says how do you say that without sounding egotistical, or bitchy but there is where men and women differ....... men generally dont care if people see them as aggressive or egotistical women do care.....they WANT AND NEED to be liked so can you set aside that need to be liked to get what you want? trust me....she can.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 4, 2014 11:03:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to take that...
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 4, 2014 11:06:52 GMT -5
Part of it is the different ways society responds to the same behavior coming from a woman versus a man.
Men tend not to get called "shrill," or "ballbusters," or "moody," or "bitchy," even though men demonstrably can be all those things.
Women tend to be both compelled to adopt overtly 'male' responses and behaviors in order to succeed, and castigated for doing so. There's an odd idea prevalent in many corporate cultures that interactive communication is a Bad Thing, and that for example a manager who solicits feedback from junior staff is both weak in herself and somehow undermining the entire corporate culture. Hierarchicalism is a hallmark of patriarchy, which is why there's an element of accuracy in describing its enabling architecture in a society as 'male.' It's certainly true that matriarchal social structures can likewise by hierarchies, but they are typically less linear and less overt.
Looking specifically at pay in either skilled labor or management circles, in many cases what the employer is valuing in the corporate culture is an approach classically identified as 'male' - goal-oriented rather than task-oriented, top-down hierarchical rather than crowdsourced, zero-sum rather than nonzero-sum, combative rather than collaborative; a world of sporting rather than artistic metaphors, a world where projects 'move the goalposts' to 'get across the finish line' as opposed to one where they 'paint with a broad brush.' There's no reason either why a woman can't operate highly effectively in that world, or why she should have to when perfectly valid alternative modes exist, but the fact is that if she doesn't do so, she will find herself undervalued.
Any employee is worth what they're seen to add to the corporation, in one sense. A woman who is very effective in doing things entirely contrary to the prevailing boardroom sense of how they ought to be done may find herself appreciated as a paradigm-shifting visionary, but is more likely going to find herself evaluated as damaging to the corporate ethos. There's a lot of very sexist assumptions that go into this sort of analysis, and to a lesser extent it can cut both ways - the trade-off, if you like, for lesser compensation can be a reduced expectation of consistent attendance and focus on corporate goals in the light of conflicting family needs, relative to a male worker.
Anything I say on this topic is necessarily a generalization. There are certainly cases like Lily Ledbetter's where two people doing the exact same thing have wide disparity in compensation for no reason other than their differing gender; there are also cases where gender alignments on differing career paths, and differing approaches within career paths, give rise to income disparities as a secondary symptom. And there are other factors, including the devaluing of the role of homemaker in an environment of rising costs of living.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2014 11:10:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to take that... let me guess- you tend to ignore interpersonal stuff on the board, right?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 4, 2014 14:12:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to take that... let me guess- you tend to ignore interpersonal stuff on the board, right? I try to, don't always succeed. Must be REALLY slow today, but how does that question tie into the conversation?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2014 14:14:02 GMT -5
let me guess- you tend to ignore interpersonal stuff on the board, right? I try to, don't always succeed. Must be REALLY slow today, but how does that question tie into the conversation? never mind. it is seriously not important. it is about the least important thing imaginable.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,556
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 4, 2014 17:43:51 GMT -5
Women who are firm and outspoken are called 'bitchy', which is a negative thing.
Men who are firm and outspoken are called 'assertive' which is a positive thing.
I had a male VP tell me once I needed to learn how to be 'nice.' I would be willing to bet you $1000 he never once told a male co-worker that. When I argued a point with him, he would call me 'hysterical' - also not something he ever called a male co-worker.
Any suggestions I made he immediately shot down. Then a day or two later, he would make the same suggestion, like he just thought it up himself, and be very proud of his wonderful idea.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2014 18:05:09 GMT -5
Women who are firm and outspoken are called 'bitchy', which is a negative thing. Men who are firm and outspoken are called 'assertive' which is a positive thing. I had a male VP tell me once I needed to learn how to be 'nice.' I would be willing to bet you $1000 he never once told a male co-worker that. When I argued a point with him, he would call me 'hysterical' - also not something he ever called a male co-worker. Any suggestions I made he immediately shot down. Then a day or two later, he would make the same suggestion, like he just thought it up himself, and be very proud of his wonderful idea. Now now. No need to get hysterical about it.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 5, 2014 8:53:15 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2014 9:51:38 GMT -5
male workforce participation has been declining for a very long time, as well.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 5, 2014 13:28:13 GMT -5
Come on- quit with the 'studies'. That shit doesn't matter to anti-intellectuals. All it takes is for Rush Limbaugh to see the original statistics and explain how obvious it is what happened- and who in their right mind is going to listen to a statistician or scientist when they have the word of a college dropout. You see, what these liberal college boys failed to take into account is (load of bullshit)- because statisticians are stupid eggheads that have no clue how to isolate variables or compare things. Yep- they just missed it. Women work less hours, or work different jobs, or what the hell ever. Never occurred to them at all to take that into account- they just did it in five minutes on a napkin- which would be more time and thought than Rush spent on it- and his word is gold. Well, Rush does have half his brain tied behind his back. Seriously though, the only one talking about Rush in this thread is you. I'm not sure what he has to do with anything.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 5, 2014 13:33:06 GMT -5
Women who are firm and outspoken are called 'bitchy', which is a negative thing. Men who are firm and outspoken are called 'assertive' which is a positive thing. I had a male VP tell me once I needed to learn how to be 'nice.' I would be willing to bet you $1000 he never once told a male co-worker that. When I argued a point with him, he would call me 'hysterical' - also not something he ever called a male co-worker. Any suggestions I made he immediately shot down. Then a day or two later, he would make the same suggestion, like he just thought it up himself, and be very proud of his wonderful idea. I think there is truth to this. There is more to it than women just being more assertive in the workplace. Assertive women are perceived differently than assertive men. Women are expected to be "nice" and "caring." Men generally aren't expected to behave in such a way.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 5, 2014 21:14:38 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter if it is true or not. It is part of the holy scriptures of liberalism. You just keep repeating these statements like a rosary over and over to get people to believe it whether it is true or not. Liberalism is a religion, and this is dogma. It's hardly arguable. And that "generic info" is highly relevant FACT, but you can't go against orthodoxy or you are scourged, burned at the stake, dunked and otherwise tortured until you confess your sins and convert. well here you are Shooby, a PRIME example of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over... Liberalism is not a religion. I will say it again , slowly, Liberalism is not, I repeat N O T a religion. And, since I found discrepancies with your so called "highly relevant facts", that makes the rest of it rather suspect as well. The figure of 77 cents on the dollar is probably wrong, outdated, but the fact still remains that often, women do make less than men for the same job. The gap is closing, but it's there. I have experienced this personally. As far as demanding you convert? Please, you flatter yourself. We don't want you.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 5, 2014 23:15:04 GMT -5
Come on- quit with the 'studies'. That shit doesn't matter to anti-intellectuals. All it takes is for Rush Limbaugh to see the original statistics and explain how obvious it is what happened- and who in their right mind is going to listen to a statistician or scientist when they have the word of a college dropout. You see, what these liberal college boys failed to take into account is (load of bullshit)- because statisticians are stupid eggheads that have no clue how to isolate variables or compare things. Yep- they just missed it. Women work less hours, or work different jobs, or what the hell ever. Never occurred to them at all to take that into account- they just did it in five minutes on a napkin- which would be more time and thought than Rush spent on it- and his word is gold. Well, Rush does have half his brain tied behind his back. Seriously though, the only one talking about Rush in this thread is you. I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. Nothing- I used him as an example. Is the 77% figure correct- plenty of room to debate on it. My point was when faced with some study or statistic that doesn't fit the narrative- then they casually dismiss it with some simple, yet 'overlooked' reason and claim that-as the OP did- that therefore it was just 100% BS.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 8:39:48 GMT -5
If I say that the common features of religions are:
1) Moral evaluations of 'right' and 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
2) Invoked authority to exhort the faithful to embrace 'right' and denounce 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
why isn't liberalism a religion?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 8:46:09 GMT -5
I think it's outdated - the 2007 figure I found was 81%, I think, and 85% if you restrict to just unionized workers.
www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/WURF%20Files/kaminski/kaminski%20Women's%20union%20ldshp.pdf
But more importantly, it's irrelevant. Because it's comparing the population of full-time working females to the population of full-time working males as if those two populations are only differentiated by gender.
In fact, the population of full-time working males works, on average, 8-10% more hours than the population of full-time working females. We'd expect, ceteris paribus, that population to make 8-10% more money. But ceteris non paribus in this case, because full-time working males are disproportionately represented in relatively high-earning industries, and full-time working females are disproportionately represented in relatively low-earning industries.
The headline implication of the 77% figure is that, if you went into a typical American workplace, and found a man and a woman of equal seniority working side-by-side at the same task, that the woman would earn only 77c for every dollar the man earned. Hence the drive for paycheck fairness: but if you actually look at what the statistic is comparing, you see that this isn't typical at all. I don't say it doesn't happen (and where it happens, the difference is possibly more egregious than 23c on the dollar, as bad as that is), and I don't say the other disparities mentioned in the previous paragraph can't be interpreted as embodying some sort of institutional gender bias against women; but I do say that the problem is not what the headline statistic makes it out to be, and I do believe that what the problem actually is - unequal representation of women in relatively high-paying positions, i.e. inequality of opportunity for women - is, slowly, being addressed.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 8:52:04 GMT -5
If I say that the common features of religions are:
1) Moral evaluations of 'right' and 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
2) Invoked authority to exhort the faithful to embrace 'right' and denounce 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
why isn't liberalism a religion?
Same reason "parenting" isn't a religion.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 8:53:11 GMT -5
If I say that the common features of religions are:
1) Moral evaluations of 'right' and 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
2) Invoked authority to exhort the faithful to embrace 'right' and denounce 'wrong' behaviors and attitudes;
why isn't liberalism a religion?
For the same reason conservativeism isn't a religion.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 8:54:52 GMT -5
Neither is "pastoring." But pastors follow a religion, don't they?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 8:56:14 GMT -5
Actually, mmhmm, I'd contend that both are equally religious in character. I think it's entirely possible for an evangelical Christian to be more religious about his conservatism than about his Christian faith, for example.
This isn't a partisan bugbear of mine, it's me railing against what I see as a fundamentally false division between the sacred and the secular.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 8:57:48 GMT -5
Neither is "pastoring." But pastors follow a religion, don't they? Neither is Liberalism, but some liberals are Atheists, Buddhists or Catholics, right? We could do this all day...
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 9:11:54 GMT -5
We could, but sooner or later you'd have to stop trying to treat social functions, such as pastoring and parenting, as the equivalent of religious philosophies, such as liberalism and Catholicism.
Are you familiar with a work entitled The Secular City by Harvey Cox? I didn't invent the idea of 'secular religion' out of whole cloth.
Put it another way: how would, say, conservatism have to be different in order for you to understand it as a religion?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 6, 2014 9:14:47 GMT -5
I usually understand religion to invoke or contain a diety or being of a higher order. Of course with this in mind I can see your point about parenting being a religion
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 9:22:48 GMT -5
And this is typically the case in nonsecular religions. What actually matters though is the authority - the function of the priest as intercessor for the faithful with the deity is a cipher for his embodiment as the temporal authority (this is clearly the case, for example, in the Roman Catholic Church, where the infallible Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth).
Modern liberalism makes certain assertions about freedom, justice, equality, and so on; these assertions rest on nebulous appeals to unstated authority, as do the contradictory assertions made by its rival in modern conservatism. Rightists can invoke the authority of the Abrahamic God in many cases because their positions are compatible with the mainstream dogma of the Abrahamic religions; leftists, however, cannot openly invoke their authority because the whole point is that the modern liberal is supposed to be antidogmatic and anticredal. It's impossible to preach tolerance while disdaining all opposition to your worldview, but that's the task modern liberalism sets itself. The contradictions have to be obscured, and the overt and aggressive secularism of the modern Left is a means to this end.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 9:25:45 GMT -5
Actually, mmhmm, I'd contend that both are equally religious in character. I think it's entirely possible for an evangelical Christian to be more religious about his conservatism than about his Christian faith, for example.
This isn't a partisan bugbear of mine, it's me railing against what I see as a fundamentally false division between the sacred and the secular. Contend whatever you like. Thing is, your contentions may not apply for everyone. While someone may religiously support something, that doesn't make that something a religion.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 9:25:55 GMT -5
We could, but sooner or later you'd have to stop trying to treat social functions, such as pastoring and parenting, as the equivalent of religious philosophies, such as liberalism and Catholicism.
Are you familiar with a work entitled The Secular City by Harvey Cox? I didn't invent the idea of 'secular religion' out of whole cloth.
Put it another way: how would, say, conservatism have to be different in order for you to understand it as a religion?
I don't believe I am attempting to treat social functions as the equivalent of religious philosophies, my statement is quite the opposite. Indeed I am quite familiar with Harvey Cox. A friend of mine had him for a Professor at Andover Newton. Conservatism would need to meet this standard definition of religion in order for me to understand it as such.
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 9:34:11 GMT -5
I trust you can advance a theory as to what does make it a religion, then. Worshipping a golden calf doesn't make it a God - but, from the viewpoint of the worshipper, is that a relevant datum?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 9:36:16 GMT -5
I assume you're understanding your dictionary definition the way most people understand most dictionary definitions, i.e. that not all headings must be met in all cases for an entity to match the definition.
Are you saying that conservatism, or liberalism for that matter, does not amount to "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons?"
|
|