How You Can Support Women Today

[KingOrfeo]

What?

Ohhhhhh you think they are entitled to or owed a company that a male built because you think that's equality right?

What they're entitled to, and don't have, is the same chance at promotion to CEO that they would have if male.

 

[thør]

Put dem wimmins on ice!

 

[BotanyBoy]

What they're entitled to, and don't have, is the same chance at promotion to CEO that they would have if male.

They do.

Plenty of female CEO's out there.

And any woman can go down get herself an TID#/LLC and be a CEO instead of expecting it to be handed to her.

There isn't a SINGLE THING UNDER THE SUN that can stop a woman from being at the top of her game in the US other than all those "Fuck poor people" restrictions on people making money for themselves you seem to cherish above all else.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's great, AJ! And as they were on their way out the door, did you say "girls who get pregnant should have to stay pregnant because at least then they won't be able to spread their STDs everywhere" or is that the kind of opinion you prefer to save and post here? You know, like the "Haitians are less than human" kinda thing.

And let's not forget his classic "Parents bear some responsibility if their daughter is raped"!

#SlutShaming

 

[hashtag46]

And let's not forget his classic "Parents bear some responsibility if their daughter is raped"!

#SlutShaming

Back to your favourite topic, you disgusting piece of shit, huh?

Isn't it enough that Laurel keeps banning your attack alts because of your creepy inuendoes about posters' children?

 

[Pookie]

And let's not forget his classic "Parents bear some responsibility if their daughter is raped"!

#SlutShaming

Have gays destroyed the church yet? AJ was pretty sure it was on "The Agenda".

 

[RobDownSouth]

Have gays destroyed the church yet? AJ was pretty sure it was on "The Agenda".

AJ also claims President Jimmy Carter ordered him to suck dick during his brief stay in the USMC.

 

[lovetoread]

https://jayokanmi.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/misogynist_only_long_word.png?w=640

....

 

[KingOrfeo]

Put dem wimmins on ice!

And here I was expecting a figure-skating clip . . .

 

[KingOrfeo]

They do.

Statistically, they don't, and it's not because men make better executives.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Statistically, they don't,

Statistically?

What's that got to do with shit?

Can women be CEO's in the USA or not?

and it's not because men make better executives.

No it's because men go down and fill the fuckin' paperwork out or are a slave to their careers.

Just like all the female CEO's out there.

Less women doing it doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.

 

[hashtag46]

I'm biased.

Ever since I moved to Nz and then to Au, I had excellent experiences with both genders who were in positions of equal or lesser power than mine.

But as far as top positions were concerned, I had by far better experiences with men.
And that had nothing to do with my sex of my appearance (God knows, I'm far from looking like a top model).

I believe that many of those western women who went crazy after getting in positions of power either went on a power trip, or due to the internalized oppression mentality turned against their own kind.

 

[Phelia]

One of my aunts was a suffragist (change by legal means) before 1914. She outearned her brothers all her life and voted in the first election in which UK women were eligible to vote.

Several of the women in my wife's family tree wrote 'unenfranchised' as their occupational status on the 1911 Census return.

I missed this earlier, but I fuckin' love it

Thanks, Ogg.

No it's because men go down and fill the fuckin' paperwork out or are a slave to their careers.

Just like all the female CEO's out there.

Less women doing it doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.

BB I am going to spend some time and explain my perspective in here because my sense is that you are misguided rather than malicious. I also think that we are lit friends, and that you respect and trust what I have to say enough to really listen, and I hope you take that seriously.

Let's start with what I know best: me. I am amazingly privileged. I grew up in an upper middle class in a family where both of my parents had PhDs and were committed to an equal partnership - my mom stayed home with my siblings and I when we were little, but they have both worked for the majority of my life. They both cook. They split chores. My mom washes the clothes and my dad irons, for example. I am an immigrant, but I am a white and English is my mother tongue. That makes worlds of difference.

I have had amazing advantages and opportunities in this world. I have also worked hard, weathered challenges, and navigated difficult circumstances. I have a high-powered, high-paid, highly engaging job at one of the most important companies in the world, and I am here today because of a combination who I am and what I've done.

And even with oodles of privilege, I have felt the effects of unconscious bias. I've been the only woman in a meeting full of men where one of them tried to explain a data model I designed to me because he glanced around the room and assumed I was the non-technical audience. I've had to repeat myself multiple times to call equivalent attention to the statements made by my male coworkers.

Admittedly, it's hard to be objective about this and feel certain your perceptions aren't being influenced by confirmation bias, but study after study after study has proven this phenomena to be true. Show two identical resumes to someone with only the name/gender changed and you get completely different feedback. Same applies to people of color, people with visible disabilities, etc.

Almost all Wall Street and Silicon Valley companies are investing in collecting data on and providing proactive training programs about these unconscious biases, because they are real, and because they can negatively impact the bottom line.

Google (little tech company - maybe you've heard of them) has poured tons of money and effort to this and has a wealth of incredible resources freely available. They ran one simulation that I thought was fascinating. They started with an equal gender distribution between entry level employees (50/50) and ran a probability model with a 1% variance for gender bias. That is, promotion decisions were made equally 99/100 times, and then biased towards the male candidate 1/100 times. After running this simulation many times over, the distributions of women in the upper levels of management were super close to the gender disparity we see in tech company management today.

So as an individual, have I been held back because I'm a woman? I don't think so, but there are probably situations where I experienced greater difficulty than I would have as a male version of myself. That said, there are clearly systemic inequalities, both within North American society and especially globally. I will always fight to make the world a more equal place for everyone, and I think that the ability to ingest empirical evidence and draw rational conclusions is critical. I don't see how any reasonable person could be in opposition to that.

 

[hashtag46]

Double

 

[BotanyBoy]

.........

 

[Emerson40]

Well Phelia,

It now makes sense to me why you and I had a few difficulties reconcilliating our worldviews.
(regardless of others' -maybe yours too, who knows- impression that I'm "the village idiot" as per Sean, Luk and Adjud.).

I grew up in a similarly high maintenance family and I pursued for a while a high maintenance education and a high maintenance career.
But my other life experiences were different than yours, in that my mom wore the pants even if she was more loyal to us, and I had better experiences with male superiors in my line of work, particularly after emigrating.

So even if I'm -genuinely so- a woman, my life experiences led me to be more positively biased towards western men.. ((but for the misogynistic retards and throwaways who populate Lit., of course))

Sweet edit, dude.

 

[BotanyBoy]

BB I am going to spend some time and explain my perspective in here because my sense is that you are misguided rather than malicious.

Ever think I'm neither and just might have a different POV/perspective from a radically different life?

 

[oggbashan]

Secretarial skills

Back in the 1970s I used to recruit secretaries for more senior staff in the large company I worked for. As the result of an organisational quirk my office, although close to the company's headquarters, was classed as an outstation with more independence than HQ departments. Secretaries at HQ were recruited by the HQ personnel department following their own strict procedures. Those procedures emphasised typing/dictation proficiency above almost everything else.

My view was that secretaries were their bosses' deputies. In the absence of their boss they had to take decisions, think out who to consult, who to direct to act, and most of all to decide whether something or someone was important enough to bring to their bosses' attention.

My main criterion for a secretary was ability to think and to use their initiative.

The secretaries I recruited might bully junior managers including me and act as if they were the boss's voice. They could and would run the organisation in the boss' absence using the knowledge and skills of other managers as appropriate.

My bosses were pleased with the secretaries they got even if sometimes they would complain to me that their secretaries bullied them too into making decisions in time. One complained that his secretary could be even more demanding than his mother-in-law.

The downside? The secretaries I recruited kept being promoted to look after even more senior bosses in headquarters so I was constantly recruiting more, and hiring temps in between.

But I had a solution for getting good temporary secretaries. I had built up a relationship with some theatrical agents. I could ring them up and get a 'resting' actress (which is what they were called then) who had secretarial skills. Even if the actress wasn't as familiar with our organisation as the promoted secretary she knew how to act as a competent manager until she learned the ropes.

Some of the resting actresses were household names between bookings. Several were spectacular leading one boss to complain that managers were coming to his office more frequently, not to see him, but to see his secretary. That didn't happen when a couple of the temps were resting actors. Then the other secretaries used to gather around the actor at tea breaks - which helped him to learn how the organisation really worked.

But my bosses got efficient people who were a considerable asset. By the end of the 1970s the secretaries I had recruited had become secretaries to a third of the headquarters managers, in preference to those recruited by the personnel department (who hated my guts!). Recruiting women with brains? What was I thinking?

 

[Duncan113]

I thought the whole point feminists have been shrieking at us all these years is they don't want or need men to support them. Secondly, to answer the original question, I usually support women with my legs while grabbing their asses and thrusting my pelvis.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Statistically?

What's that got to do with shit?

Everything.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Everything.

LOL!!!

No...it's pretty meaningless with regard to equal opportunity.

Wonderful tool to help the deceptive drive a bullshit narrative for the ignorant though.

 

[KingOrfeo]

LOL!!!

No...it's pretty meaningless with regard to equal opportunity.

Wonderful tool to help the deceptive drive a bullshit narrative for the ignorant though.

See Phelia's post #188, second to last paragraph. Statistical measurements are practically the only meaningful measurements of whether equal opportunity is present.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Pookie's Account Is Now 'wendy Whiner.'

 

[BotanyBoy]

Statistical measurements are practically the only meaningful measurements of whether equal opportunity is present.

No they are not and here is why.


They are the only meaningful measurement of who is taking advantage of those opportunities. Not if the opportunities are there for both genders or not. The fact that women are present and in a lot of cases whipping the fuckin' ass off their male counterparts in pretty much every fuckin' field available proves the opportunities are available to women.

Just like they can be Infantry and attend the Army's elite combat leadership course, Ranger school. Just because damn near every fucking one that tried quit in less than 24 hrs doesn't mean they didn't have a shot.

Opportunity =/= results... you can't use the results as a measure of opportunity as not everyone takes advantage of those opportunities or even does so in a successful manner.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No they are not and here is why.


They are the only meaningful measurement of who is taking advantage of those opportunities. Not if the opportunities are there for both genders or not. The fact that women are present and in a lot of cases whipping the fuckin' ass off their male counterparts in pretty much every fuckin' field available proves the opportunities are available to women.

Just like they can be Infantry and attend the Army's elite combat leadership course, Ranger school. Just because damn near every fucking one that tried quit in less than 24 hrs doesn't mean they didn't have a shot.

Opportunity =/= results... you can't use the results as a measure of opportunity as not everyone takes advantage of those opportunities or even does so in a successful manner.

Once again, see post #188. If you adjust your calculations to account for the different numbers of women and men beginning a career track that might lead to CEO, I think you'll find men still have a better chance than women of getting there.

See also gender pay gap:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between men's and women's earnings.

The gender pay gap can be looked at locally, nationally and internationally. There are different ways of measuring the pay gap and different ways of expressing it. For example, the European Union defines the gender pay gap as the average difference between men's and women's hourly earnings, while the United States defines it as the ratio of women's to men's median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round workers.

What is important is that all ways of measuring or expressing the gender pay gap show that in every country men outearn women, leaving women more at risk of poverty for no reason other than their gender.[1]

The gender pay gap is often divided into the ‘unadjusted’ and ‘adjusted’ pay gaps. The ‘unadjusted pay gap’ does not take into account all of the factors that impact on the gap’s existence such as differences in education, number of hours worked, job sector, position etc.[2] When adjusted for these factors, leaving only what is unexplained or is a result of workplace discrimination, the pay gap does diminish considerably. This has led many conservatives and libertarians to denounce the gap as a myth — because when you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination vanishes!

However, this ignores that the origins of the adjusted factors are usually discriminatory in themselves, being almost entirely the result of society’s expectations of men and women.[3] As one commentator puts it:

If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn't we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity?’[4]