Pollitical Corectness

[crysede]

Hmmmmmmmmm, you seem to think that these women are 'forced' to care for the children that they bore. Why is that? Why don't you poll Lit. to determnine how the women with children here feel about it?

'Pressured' does not mean the same thing as 'forced': I'm quite familiar with English, and if I'd meant 'forced' I would have said 'forced'.

As far as equal pay goes. I'm under no legal obligation to do so with professional employee's. Hourlies, yes.

I take it you fall under one of the few exemptions in the Federal Equal Pay Act then - but the vast majority of employers are covered by the EPA, and are prohibited from paying women less than men for work of equal value (enforced by the EEOC and DOL - or possibly just by the EEOC: I haven't quite figured out how these two departments work in your government, there seems to be an awful lot of overlap, it's very confusing).

That was specifically aimed at your remarks concerning the "social" pressures under which women are burdened. From family and friends, etc. You presume that men are NOT subjected to many of the same pressures. Most of these 'pressures' that you speak of come from peer groups. Female to female and male to male. Don't look for any laws there.

No, I conclude that men are not subject to systemic unfair pressure - which is something I imagine you have no problem agreeing with, since you feel that noone is subject to any form of systemic unfair treatment (think of me as half agreeing with you ).

 

[crysede]

Thanks for the birthday wishes.

My front door is almost completely overgrown and I haven't trimmed the vines back yet. There are no roses blooming, (this type only flowers twice a year). I guess I'll get to it tomorrow.

I have a few roses outdoors, but there's too much fog here on the coast in summer, cuts back on the sun and only the really tough roses do well. My my favourites are the minis that I grow inside. I know everyone always says you can't grow hardy roses inside, but I've been growing them with my other bonsai for five years now, and the roses grow like weeds (very beautiful, fragrant weeds mind you ).

I don't believe the "biology made me do it" argument because there doesnt' seem to be empirical evidence for that. But there is empirical evidence that supports behavioral trends that show that many, if not most women, embrace motherhood and the role of primary caregiver.

But it is a fact that, as societal pressure on women to stay home is decreasing, more and more women are choosing to have careers outside the home, and men are taking a greater role in child care.

This supports the idea that these behaviour trends are socially created rather than due to female biology, and shows that at the very least we must admit that it was society that was holding women back from their current level of participation in the workplace (if it was biology, then the decreasing pressure would not have had any effect).

I see no reason to assume that this trend that has persisted for the last century is going to come to a screeching halt now - certainly from the comments I've heard from mothers, most would prefer that their husbands played an equal role in childcare, so I can't see women getting up in arms over the idea of sharing the responsibility.

I'm not aware of any societies where the "norm" is 50-50% for child caregiving. Please point those out to me.

We discussed non-paternalistic structures of tribes before didn't we? Or maybe that was with Ishmael. There have also been historical cultures that had a more egalitarian concept of child care, particularly the steppes nomads, and I believe the ancient Egyptians did as well (though not quite 50/50 in their case), oh, and also early Islamic society. At any rate, would you actually find it convincing if I pointed out specific examples? Unless you think that it's actually impossible for men and women to share the burden of child care 50/50, then I'm not sure what I would gain by showing instances of it happening.

I don't think that the BLS statistics are complete enough to provide a realistic comparision because they didn't "adjust" for all factors. I don't think they adjust for a comparison of the same jobs, the length of time on the job, willingness to work overtime or to move and several other important factors that contribute significantly to wage equality.

Well what about the DOC study then? It adjusted for all that stuff.

As for your comments about self-employed people.. are you suggesting that the purchasing public is discriminating against women when they find that a business is run by a woman so they will pay her less than they'd pay to Sam down the street for the same goods and services? I'll bet if you "adjusted" for similar businesses, the difference goes away. This is exactly the point of the study by the guy from UIllini cited above. What looks like a pay discrepancy goes away when factors like size of the business and scope of responsibility are considered.

No, I'm suggesting that for the author to not bother to look at wages when she is using the example of women-run small businesses to support her claim that there is no gender gap in wages, is ridiculous. And as I mentioned in my post, that data was the DOC study that did correct for those factors - and no the difference did not go away.

I've seen similar analysis done in the mainstream press as that done by Judy that I posted above.

Hmmm, let's not get into my opinion of mass media lol - I think we've got enough to deal with right now.

1) Women have choice in their careers
2) Women make comparable wages after adjustments
3) Most women embrace the role of caregiver and there seems to be a historical and behavioral preference for that role.

The case against (2) still looks stronger than the case for (2) to me, and (3) seems rather beside the point: the fact that there seems to be a historical and behaviour preference doesn't mean much - there is a historical and behavioural preference for young black men to engage in crime in our society, but that doesn't justify concluding that young black men are inherently criminal.

I think we must stay vigilent to ensure that equal opportunity exists. If clear wage differentials appear, they should be litigated.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that means we have to be willing to see wage differentials: you can explain away anything if you work hard enough at it and call in biology and inherently different traits - at some point you have to be willing to accept that the most reasonable explanation for the data is that there is a wage differential - 100% proof will never be possible here, there are just too many factors, if100% proven facts are all that you will accept, then even if there is a wage gap you will not be able to acknowledge it. It is one thing to say we must be vigilant to ensure equal opportunity, it is quite another to be willing to accept that even in out enlightened society it might not exist yet. Personally, I find the evidence to weigh heavily in favour of it not existing yet.

I support our laws and current public policy in regards to equal opportunity. I do not support some sort of strange "rating" system for comparable worth (I believe in market forces).

I don't support some sort of "strange rating system"; I do, however, recognize that many, many jobs that men and women perform are easily comparable in terms of whether the involve equal work. I also think that history shows very plainly that market forces will not eliminate discrimination when it is entrenched in society.

While I feel bad that some people are "pressured" or even ridiculed for choices that they make that are different from prevailing behavioral trends, I don't see anything more that should be done other than be sympathetic to them. I certainly can't legislate that mothers shouldn't make their daughters feel bad when they get a PhD by making comments about the wish for grandkids. I think this is an "innocent" or natural preference that parents have for wanting grandkids and does not indicate some sort of sociological or psychological systemic problem on the part of parents or human beings in general. It was tactless of the mother, but not indicative of some sort of giant systemic problem.

As I was careful to state, it was not the mother's comments that bothered me, it was the social framework that supported this opinion in terms of her daughter, but not her sons. Wanting children is fine, wanting grandchildren is fine, but a society that encourages valuing your sons' achievements as a person, while valuing your daughter's in terms of her being supposed to be a mother, is unfair.

My sort of feminism is not 'all men are evil tyrants' feminazism, nor is it 'this is all men's fault, aren't they mean and nasty to us poor women' - it's the rather less radical notion that women are people, so they should be treated like people not children, and they should behave like people not victims. (I just know you're going to have a field day with this statement, lol, but before you go rushing off a reply, keep in mind that you are the one who has been claiming my arguments suggest that women are childlike-victims - and I've challenged you on this every time you've stated it: recognizing there is injustice, and that social pressure is restricting women's freedom of choice, is not the same thing as claiming to be a helpless victim of said injustice )

Reproduction is largely a woman's choice. Though I support women's choice in abortion, men have almost no choice in the matter. Of course there's more "pressure" to women to reproduce, it's a societal need (in general, not specific). Men recieve pressure too, but just not as much.

I think that conception, whether to seek it or prevent it, is a responsibility that belongs with both men and women. Once pregnant, the decision to remain pregnant is largely a woman's choice, and this seems quite reasonable to me since they are the ones carrying the fetus inside their bodies - I don't think men should have choice in the matter beyond that of whether or not their sperm is used. (I do agree purposefully arranging to become pregnant by a man without his consent is wrong, but by the time such deception is discovered the pregnancy is generally advanced, and the harm done to the man cannot justify the potential harm to the woman by a forced termination at that point - as in all moral dilemma's of this type, one has to choose the option that is least unfair, due to the unequal physical involvement).

However, once the infant is no longer actually part of the woman's body, men's responsibility should become much greater again - if the woman does not nurse, then the parents' responsibilities should be socially accepted to be 50/50. The fact that most, if not all, couples will likely not choose to split the burden of childcare 50/50 is fine with me - I just don't think society has any business suggesting that either of the parents ought to be held primarily responsible. The decision should be up to the families involved, and so long as the children are being well cared for society has no right to disapprove - since it is quite well known that men are every bit as capable of nurturing children as women are, there is no justification for continuing to place most of the responsibility for childcare on women. If the child is not being well cared for, then the mother should not be held in more contempt than the father for failing to nurture the child. Unless I'm shown convincing evidence that men are inherently incapable of loving their children as much as women do, my position seems like the most reasonable to me.

I'm not familiar with this. What are these positive popular culture stories about single men who never marry?

Mother Teresa was a positive story. I can't think of any similar stories of men who choose the single lifestyle.

Let me think, similar stories about men forsaking worldly goods and pleasures in Western culture: well Christ springs to mind - and all the founding father's of the church, etc...

But religion brings a whole other set of complicating factors into this, so I was thinking more along secular lines - the scientists, political leaders, artists, doctors, etc... that we admire (and the confirmed-bachelor scholar/scientist/doctor that is something of a staple in English literature). It's not all that surprising that you aren't familiar with positive portrayals of men who've stayed single, because the fact that they never married is rarely mentioned except in passing, rather than being singled out for special comment (which is my point).

Maybe it's different on college campuses. Oprah's not married is she? She doesn't have kids either. She's a pretty positive story too. There's probably dozen's of others. There are positive stories out there. Wasn't Susan B. Anthony single? Single or married, it doesn't really matter much to me. Don't let it bother you. Why focus on it so much? Make your choices and go ahead with it, why worry so much about wagging tongues?

Oprah's not married - something that's routinely brought up, as is her lack of children - despite the fact that she insists she likes her life as it is: so I don't think this counts as a positive social portray of an unmarried woman leading a fulfilling life - pop culture has thus far been rather blatantly unaccepting of her claims that her life is fulfilling.

Susan B. Anthony is another good example of popular culture's lack of acceptance, she is often portrayed as having martyred herself (by giving up her chance to raise a family) for the sake of other women, but her own writings are not the voice of a bitter, lonely old maid nor of a woman who led an unfulfilling life.

PS. Sorry it's taking me a little longer than before to respond - I'm still totally enjoying debating with you , I'm just working on getting the third chapter of a story done before school starts next month (I know I'm not going to have much time for erotic writing with classes, teaching, and a thesis to keep me busy lol).

 

[Ishmael]

Susan B. Anthony

Was a political activist. Yes, she was somewhat historically important, but will be relegated to footnote status as the years go by. Her very activism left her open to the criticism she recieved.

How about some women that have really made a difference and did so recently under the 'oppressive thumbs' of men.

Like;

Olive Ann Beech
Grace M. Hooper
Madame Curie

To name just a few. Two of the above were married and had children. One died without ever having married. All made major contributions to science. The two that were married overshadowed their husbands.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

It feels like years ago that I gave up on this thread...

You guys!

Obsessive are we ?

 

[crysede]

Was a political activist. Yes, she was somewhat historically important, but will be relegated to footnote status as the years go by. Her very activism left her open to the criticism she recieved.

How about some women that have really made a difference and did so recently under the 'oppressive thumbs' of men.

Like;
Olive Ann Beech
Grace M. Hooper
Madame Curie

To name just a few. Two of the above were married and had children. One died without ever having married. All made major contributions to science. The two that were married overshadowed their husbands.

I think you have entirely failed to gasp the point of that part of my argument - I was not suggesting that being married prevented women from being successful, in fact, I was not making any connection between success and marriage, or success and children, whatsoever.

Nor have I ever suggested marriage was 'evil' because it placed women under the "oppressive thumbs" of men. lol Can't you guys look at any description of a social problem without needing to fill in some scapegoat to point the finger at? Social problems are just that, social - as in involving the whole society - this obsession with finger pointing is silly.

 

[crysede]

It feels like years ago that I gave up on this thread...

You guys!

Obsessive are we ?

Yes, but I wisely limit my obsessiveness to the really important things in life: debates, Breyers ice-cream, and blowjobs.

 

[Ishmael]

I think you have entirely failed to gasp the point of that part of my argument - I was not suggesting that being married prevented women from being successful, in fact, I was not making any connection between success and marriage, or success and children, whatsoever.

Nor have I ever suggested marriage was 'evil' because it placed women under the "oppressive thumbs" of men. lol Can't you guys look at any description of a social problem without needing to fill in some scapegoat to point the finger at? Social problems are just that, social - as in involving the whole society - this obsession with finger pointing is silly.

I think you fail to grasp the problem. It is not a social problem that you can legislate.

Let's go back to one of my expamples.

Two employees, one male one female. Both have excellent track records, both are married in stable realtionships. Both have been with the company for 6 years and both are around 30 years of age.

I have the money in my budget to send one of the above employees to a management seminar. This decision will position the attendee for advancement to a managerial position with my company.

I send the man. Why?

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

I think you fail to grasp the problem. It is not a social problem that you can legislate.

Just when did The Politically Correct Language Act pass? I must have missed that. lol At any rate, I've never advocated legislating it.

I send the man. Why?

Because the women who work for you are all terrible negotiators for some reason: so he asserted that he had a right to go, she didn't protest, and you took the path of least resistance.

 

[Ishmael]

Just when did The Politically Correct Language Act pass? I must have missed that. lol At any rate, I've never advocated legislating it.Because the women who work for you are all terrible negotiators for some reason: so he asserted that he had a right to go, she didn't protest, and you took the path of least resistance.

Nice try, but no cigar for you.

The reason is a business reason. There is a 75% chance that she will start a family within the next 5 years. She will take advantage of the "Family Leave Act" and spend up to six months bonding with the child. There is also a 50% chance that at the end of the six months she choose to stay home with her child. (This statistically last for 4 years and barring any further children sje will then re-enter the work force.)

He too will start a family, but his absence will generally be no longer than the average vacation.

While she in out on leave, I have a senior position to fill now, and I can't hire anyone because I have to hold that position open for her regardless of whether she returns to work or not. That means that I am running my company light and now probably have scheduling problems.

I have a business to run. I don't have paid spare managers on staff just so I can accomodate these things. It is NOT good business.

Was she discriminated against. Yep. Is there anything that can be done about it? Nope. But it is a business decision, not a social decision. And it is a sound business decision.

You will find that women generally advance rapidly once they've passed their child-bearing years.

And before you ask, if this were a case where the woman was clearly superior, she would have gone to the seminar.

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

And before you ask, if this were a case where the woman was clearly superior, she would have gone to the seminar.

Why? If she leaves within six months the fact that she was a much better manager (than the man would have been) doesn't matter does it? Better to have a less qualified manager than none at all, right?

It's clearly not good business to have women in positions that are actually of any importance - I mean they might claim to be interested in their career, but once those hormones take over you can just forget about them taking responsibility for their actions.

Wouldn't it be far simpler just to not hire women at all? I mean even if they're limited to easily replaced positions, wouldn't it be much more cost effective in terms of training to have a nice dependable male workforce that didn't feel any need to bond with children?

 

[Ishmael]

Why? If she leaves within six months the fact that she was a much better manager (than the man would have been) doesn't matter does it? Better to have a less qualified manager than none at all, right?

It's clearly not good business to have women in positions that are actually of any importance - I mean they might claim to be interested in their career, but once those hormones take over you can just forget about them taking responsibility for their actions.

Wouldn't it be far simpler just to not hire women at all? I mean even if they're limited to easily replaced positions, wouldn't it be much more cost effective in terms of training to have a nice dependable male workforce that didn't feel any need to bond with children?

Now you're being a cynic.

Of course it matters. I want the best for my company and if she's clearly superior then it may be worth the risk. And that's what business is all about. Calculated risk taking.

An all male work force? Of course that would work, did for many years. But the fact of the matter is that there are many highly qualified women out there and I would be doing my business a dis-service not to hire them. Minorities as well.

As far as limited, they limit themselves. I'm running a business, not a social experiment. From my perspective, I want all my employees to succeed and prosper. That means my business is succeeding and prospering. Obtaining the best talent, regardless of race or gender, is in my business's best interests and therefore in MY best interest. However, I must have continuity. It is much easier to fill a lower level position than a managerial position. And all else being equal, that's where I start playing the statistics game. I have to.

You see, when a key manager leaves it is not just the company that suffers. The replacement must fit in with the team. If not, I've now got a morale problem. If the exit is at a critical time in a project then the project is in jeapordy and the jobs of the people on that project as well. Far too many people believe that they live in a little bubble and what they do with their personal lives has no effect on others. Nothing could be further from the truth. The loss of one person could, and in many cases does, have a negative effect on the welfare of many others. And it is my responsibility to think of their welfare as well.

Now, I can lose anyone to another company. That is the reason that I provide benefits and raises. I have to compete with other companies in the same line of work. But that is a risk that is somewhat under my control.

So, while your discussion is mostly hypothetical. There are real world reasons that decisions are made the way they are. And these decisions are based on real world experiences and statistics.

Now, LTGR has provided a peice of the puzzle regarding the gender situation. I have provided one of many cases where the decision on the woman's part to raise a family DOES have an impact on her possibility for advancement.

Ishmael

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Nice try, but no cigar for you.

The reason is a business reason. There is a 75% chance that she will start a family within the next 5 years. She will take advantage of the "Family Leave Act" and spend up to six months bonding with the child. There is also a 50% chance that at the end of the six months she choose to stay home with her child. (This statistically last for 4 years and barring any further children sje will then re-enter the work force.)

He too will start a family, but his absence will generally be no longer than the average vacation.

While she in out on leave, I have a senior position to fill now, and I can't hire anyone because I have to hold that position open for her regardless of whether she returns to work or not. That means that I am running my company light and now probably have scheduling problems.

I have a business to run. I don't have paid spare managers on staff just so I can accomodate these things. It is NOT good business.

Was she discriminated against. Yep. Is there anything that can be done about it? Nope. But it is a business decision, not a social decision. And it is a sound business decision.

You will find that women generally advance rapidly once they've passed their child-bearing years.

And before you ask, if this were a case where the woman was clearly superior, she would have gone to the seminar.

Ishmael

I'm back! How are you all?

Hi, Ishmael! Glad you came back, maybe you can start answering all the darn questions you left hanging back there...

So let me see: what you're saying now is that slavery was discrimination (and oppression?) but not really, because it was only an inteligent business decision, and a darn good one at that, so it's OK!

Nice

 

[crysede]

Now you're being a cynic.

I'm always a cynic, being idealistic is too draining. lol

So, while your discussion is mostly hypothetical. There are real world reasons that decisions are made the way they are. And these decisions are based on real world experiences and statistics...I have provided one of many cases where the decision on the woman's part to raise a family DOES have an impact on her possibility for advancement.

So what you're saying is that the fact that women are the ones primarily responsible for child rearing in our society is not only preventing those with children from having careers, but also holding back those that do not choose to have children?

 

[Ishmael]

So what you're saying is that the fact that women are the ones primarily responsible for child rearing in our society is not only preventing those with children from having careers, but also holding back those that do not choose to have children?

Let's restate that. Women CHOOSE to be the primary caregivers. I don't think that either one of us are in a position to determine whether this is a 'societal' force, or an atavistic urge due to the bonding that takes place while the child is in the womb. Casual studies of primtive societies tends to indicate the latter. (And my own limited observation of those women that DID return to work, only to resign their position within a month to continue taking care of their new born child.)

But the nut of your question is valid and the short answer is yes. As a business owner or corporate officer I have to consider what the statistical norm is. As long as a woman keeps her options for having a child on the table, that has to be considered in my business decisions.

The nut of it is, as long as there is no reciprocity in the decision making process regarding children, there is unlikely to be true equality in the work place with regard to upper level management. A woman has the option of making a personal decision that has the capability of impacting my business and the well being of other employee's. That is a fact. So, she has the power to effect my business with a personal decision. As long as that option is held, I have to take that into consideration.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I'm back! How are you all?



So let me see: what you're saying now is that slavery was discrimination (and oppression?) but not really, because it was only an inteligent business decision, and a darn good one at that, so it's OK!

Nice

What does slavery, a practice 8 generations removed from today, have to do with this discussion? I can provide all sorts of historical facts that may seem relevant on the surface, but in reality have very little to do with today's society. That is unless your goal is retribution.

However, slavery was actually a poor business decision. It's practice with regard to the American colonies (all of them, French, Dutch, English, and Spanish) had more to do with misguided beliefs of the time than it did any sound business practice. The Roman's were the only people historically that utilized slavery in what might be called a sound business manner and their form of slavery was 'equal opportunity'.

Ishmael

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What does slavery, a practice 8 generations removed from today, have to do with this discussion? I can provide all sorts of historical facts that may seem relevant on the surface, but in reality have very little to do with today's society. That is unless your goal is retribution.

However, slavery was actually a poor business decision. It's practice with regard to the American colonies (all of them, French, Dutch, English, and Spanish) had more to do with misguided beliefs of the time than it did any sound business practice. The Roman's were the only people historically that utilized slavery in what might be called a sound business manner and their form of slavery was 'equal opportunity'.

Ishmael

It has a lot to do with this discussion when we don't seem to agree what discrimination is. I used slavery as an example, because it's generaly accepted as an discriminatory act of oppression. If you say women's discrimination is acceptable because it's a sound business practice, I can counter that slavery was acceptable at the time because it was a sound business practice. Unless you can prove it wasn't... but that will require more than "had more to do with misguided beliefs of the time than it did any sound business practice" -- what misguided believes led to the systemic practice of slavery?

Oddly, you admit slavery was a sound business practice (amongst the Romans) demolishing your own argument. Now what I really would love to see is your demonstration of slavery in Roman times being 'equal opportunity'. What does that mean? (please don't mean what I think you mean)

I'm back! How are you all?



So let me see: what you're saying now is that slavery was discrimination (and oppression?) but not really, because it was only an inteligent business decision, and a darn good one at that, so it's OK!

Nice

LOL

Duly noting the fact that you chose not to quote «Hi, Ishmael! Glad you came back, maybe you can start answering all the darn questions you left hanging back there...»

 

[Guest]

Political correctness

I'm a woman and don't want a woman gboss. most are horrible.

 

[crysede]

Good morning all

Let's restate that. Women CHOOSE to be the primary caregivers. I don't think that either one of us are in a position to determine whether this is a 'societal' force, or an atavistic urge due to the bonding that takes place while the child is in the womb. Casual studies of primtive societies tends to indicate the latter. (And my own limited observation of those women that DID return to work, only to resign their position within a month to continue taking care of their new born child.)

Actually, many women do not bond with child until after birth, and most cognitive psychologists now regard mother-child bonding as a gradual process that takes place in the first year of the child's life. There are many perfectly normal, emotionally healthy women who feel little attachment for their baby at first beyond the feeling of duty to a dependent individual.

There is no evidence to suggest men are incapable of such bonding, studies looking at children raised primarily, or entirely, by their fathers show that men are very much capable of bonding emotionally with their children every bit as strongly as a women are. Both men and women show very similar neurological responses when exposed to the stimulus of a baby's cry, pictures of babies' faces, and holding a baby. From what I can see there is little in the way of scientific evidence to support the case that women are inherently more suited to nurturing children - studies indicate, to the contrary, that in general all human beings are inherently suited to nurturing children.

While biology provides theoretical support for my case, society provides real-life support. The fact is that historically, when ever societies have loosened up on the limits emposed on women's freedom, women have taken advantage of the changes and become more active outside the home, and men become more active inside the home.

If women really were biologically driven to devote all their energy to raising children, and men really did not feel any urge to do so, then the our increasing social acceptance of men as nurturers and women as providers would not have resulted in the social changes that have taken place.

It is clear that since the social pressure on women to stay home has been decreasing, the number of women choosing to have careers has been increasing, and childcare, once entirely a woman's job, has now become partly shared with men in many cases (with a small but steadily increasing number of men actually being the primary caregivers).

Since up to the present day these ongoing changes show that it was society, rather than biology, keeping women home, I put it to you that there is no rational for suggesting that although up to now women have been being treated unfairly by social pressure - now all of a sudden this pressure has magically ceased to affect us because we have reached some biologically determined threshold.

Given the biological and social evidence, it makes for more sense to concluded men and women possess equivalent biological urges to nurture in general (clearly individual men and women will differ widely), and that the remaining social pressure is still unfairly pressuring women in their choices.

And before you transform this argument into another one of your 'evil doer vs. innocent victim' hunts - there are no evil oppressors or innocent victims here: women are part of society and are complicit in their own victimization (no one more so than the feminists that suggest that women are innocent victims, and that we must get men to 'fix' society for us).

But the nut of your question is valid and the short answer is yes. As a business owner or corporate officer I have to consider what the statistical norm is. As long as a woman keeps her options for having a child on the table, that has to be considered in my business decisions.

The nut of it is, as long as there is no reciprocity in the decision making process regarding children, there is unlikely to be true equality in the work place with regard to upper level management. A woman has the option of making a personal decision that has the capability of impacting my business and the well being of other employee's. That is a fact. So, she has the power to effect my business with a personal decision. As long as that option is held, I have to take that into consideration.

Quite so, so rather than insisting on affirmative action (which, as I have previously mentioned, I do not support), the rational thing to do is to continue to attack society's ongoing demands on women to take the majority of responsibility for childcare.

If, at some point, further reduction in social pressure on women to conform to the ideal of motherhood ceases to result in women playing greater roles in society, then - and only then - will it make sense to conclude that we have reached some biological determinate of womanhood, and then - and only then - will it be reasonable to suggest that any remaining inequality is natural and shouldn't be fretted about.

 

[Ishmael]

It has a lot to do with this discussion when we don't seem to agree what discrimination is. I used slavery as an example, because it's generaly accepted as an discriminatory act of oppression. If you say women's discrimination is acceptable because it's a sound business practice, I can counter that slavery was acceptable at the time because it was a sound business practice. Unless you can prove it wasn't... but that will require more than "had more to do with misguided beliefs of the time than it did any sound business practice" -- what misguided believes led to the systemic practice of slavery?

Oddly, you admit slavery was a sound business practice (amongst the Romans) demolishing your own argument. Now what I really would love to see is your demonstration of slavery in Roman times being 'equal opportunity'. What does that mean? (please don't mean what I think you mean)

Let's start with the Roman's

Any person could be a slave in Roman times. There are instances, many in fact, where free men and women sold themselves into slavery as a means of achieving an advantageous position. The Roman's did not discriminate by gender, religion, or ethnicity.

When one thinks of slavery one naturally thinks of field hands and house servants, and this was part of the Roman use of slaves too to be sure. But most Romans set their slaves up in business. Think of it as an early form of the Corporation where the slave holder was the CEO and the slaves were the managers on the scene. They operated more or less independently and were only responsible to keep accurate books and pay the slave owner his share. Generally upon the death of the slave holder, these men and women were emancipated and given the business that they had run as a bequeathment. This is the business model of the Roman's and the means by which they not only increased their own wealth, but that of the Empire as well.

Slaves were discriminated against in Roman society because, well because they were property. Not citizens. They had no rights to speak of beyond the good intentions of the owner. However the Roman's were very socially concious of the role of their slaves in society and actively castigated any slave owner that was abusive or otherwise practiced ill treatment of his/her slaves. And as social status was paramount to the Roman of that day, these castigations were very effective.

A great deal of this practice was carried over into the way that many of the landed gentry dealt with their slave in the America's. After all, many of these men and women were students of the classical literature forms and were quite familiar with Roman and Greek ways.

The misguided portion of the attitude towards slaves in the America's had to do with perceptions of the black race. It was believed that they were particularly suited for repititious labor in hot climates. Hence their primary use was in the cultivation of such crops as rice, sugar cane, and cotton. Cotton and sugar cane being the primary 'cash' crops of the America's. The greatest error of belief being that the black man was not thought capable of activities beyond that for which they were used.

I do not excuse these beliefs, but that is the prevailing attitude of the times. By most ALL of the European peoples.

There is some bodies of works out there that postulate the position that the Africans were not considered 'human' in the fullest sense of the word. Nothing could be further from the truth. The basic tenets of Christianity dictated that all men were men, ie. 'human'. That belief was also part of pagan Roman society. But that did not alter the fact that they were also property. They had no political rights anymore than one would allow a house, or a horse to vote or otherwise have a say in the community.

Ishmael

PS. there are more references to be quoted here than you can shake a stick at.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Good morning.

The biggest weakness in your argument is the bit with the "most cognitive psychologists regard mother-child bonding as a gradual process that takes place in the first year of the child's life " and the "There is no evidence to suggest men are incapable of such bonding,".

How many is "most"? Do they discount the pregancy part and the little kicks inside? I was under the impression that the bonding started in the first trimester. And I bet, I can find many baskets full of studies that support it.

Of course men bond with infants. It's hard not to. But that doesn't mean that they're ready to become the primary caregiver in approximately half the families in our society. Personally, I'd welcome being a primary caregiver, though I'd have to continue working (need to eat), nevertheless, if I had a capable wife who'd prefer that role, I'd defer to her.

The weakness is in the fact that most women choose to be the primary care giver in our society and in virtually every other society ever known on earth. I know that there are some women who are not suited to be the primary caregiver (I know a few of them), but the majority take to it like a duck to water.

With the weakness in the above argument, the conclusion..."Given the biological and social evidence, it makes for more sense to concluded men and women possess equivalent biological urges to nurture in general.." is not substantiated. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's refuted by the fact that so many women have a reasonable choice of career and still "choose" to be the primary caregiver.

There has been a trend of more women entering the workforce and I applaud that. Now women have free choice. However, that doesn't mean that a trend continues for more women in the workplace. I know many women who are working out of economic necessity. In Southern California, there's a very high percentage of women with small children in the workforce. The reason is that there is a very high cost of living there (an 1800 Sq Ft House can be more than $1M in some areas). Many would prefer to be home with their kids. What if, as a society, we've overcompensated? That more women would prefer to stay home but felt that they couldn't? I have no evidence to support my case, but, you don't have any evidence to support yours either, in both cases it's just conjecture without any sound supporting evidence. In the "poll" I did in my neighborhood, two of the women (out of six) who were working would prefer to be home with the kids, but were working out of economic necessity.

Don't get me wrong, I think women should have choice and that they ought to work hard contributing to the good of society in the best ways that they feel they can contribute (whether as a mother or a PhD mathematician).

I don't know if it's biological or sociological, but the result is that given the choice, most women choose to be the primary caregiver. Will that change? Maybe, maybe not.

If your conclusion on "equal nurturing" is unsubstantiated, then your conclusion on "unfair" is unsubstantiated also. There is no evidence to support or counter it.

All we can do is provide a choice for women and see where it goes.

I'll even admit there's some social pressure for women to become the primary caregivers, but, given the evidence and the lack of supporting evidence on your part, the fact that so many women choose that path and prefer it, then I'd conclude that it was "natural" and I will only go so far as to say that it's important that women have the choice of careers.

Yes, there's been a trend, but maybe the trend is run out. Do you have evidence refuting that?

I refuse to concede that the fact that so many women in our world are primary caregivers is somehow "unfair".

 

[Ishmael]

Everyone has dodged one salient fact in all this 'nurturing, caregiving' discussion.

Women have breasts that produce colestrum and milk. One can argue the need for the milk part in today's society. One cannot argue the benefits of colestrum. There is a growing trend towards breast feeding, a reversal of a trend away from same that strated in the 40's.

Besides the birth part, that is one more function that a man will never be able to perform and is also part of the bonding process.

A 'motherless' society does put the child at risk. Just as much as a fatherless society does.

I don't dispute the need for the engagement of both parents, but until such time as women conciously abandon the portions of child rearing that they are uniquely qualified for and that abandonment is accepted by society in general the consequences of the choices will play a role in a woman's ability to advance while still in her child bearing years.

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

Ishmael - Romans non-racist?! Let's not pretend that all races were equally "equal" in the eyes of Rome - every Roman knew that those Germanic barbarians were essentially filthy animals human form, and they were quite open in asserting this fact. That was no better than we Europeans claiming that blacks are animals.

Good morning.

The biggest weakness in your argument is the bit with the "most cognitive psychologists regard mother-child bonding as a gradual process that takes place in the first year of the child's life " and the "There is no evidence to suggest men are incapable of such bonding,".

How many is "most"? Do they discount the pregnancy part and the little kicks inside? I was under the impression that the bonding started in the first trimester. And I bet, I can find many baskets full of studies that support it.

Most is nearly all, and yes you can but they will be older studies, or the work a few (meaning a very, very few old-school phycologists, whose work has been rather well discredited).

And yes, that used to be the accepted wisdom for centuries, until some researchers finally decided to actually question it. Evolutionary science has added a good biological basis for this not being the case as well, so if you go looking for studies I'd suggest looking in that field as well. (Scientific American has run some very accesable articles on this issue from the perspecitive of both fields, so they'd be good place to start)

The weakness is in the fact that most women choose to be the primary care giver in our society and in virtually every other society ever known on earth. I know that there are some women who are not suited to be the primary caregiver (I know a few of them), but the majority take to it like a duck to water.

This refutation in inherently flawed because it makes not sense: if you argue that society is not causing women to chose to accept most of the responsibility for child care, then how on earth can you explain the fact that as social pressure on women to stay at home has decreased, women have been becoming more active outside the home and men have been becoming more active inside the home? Biologically evolution can't work that fast, is it just a mysterious coincidence?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Everyone has dodged one salient fact in all this 'nurturing, caregiving' discussion.

Women have breasts that produce colestrum and milk. One can argue the need for the milk part in today's society. One cannot argue the benefits of colestrum. There is a growing trend towards breast feeding, a reversal of a trend away from same that strated in the 40's.

Besides the birth part, that is one more function that a man will never be able to perform and is also part of the bonding process.

A 'motherless' society does put the child at risk. Just as much as a fatherless society does.

I don't dispute the need for the engagement of both parents, but until such time as women conciously abandon the portions of child rearing that they are uniquely qualified for and that abandonment is accepted by society in general the consequences of the choices will play a role in a woman's ability to advance while still in her child bearing years.

Ishmael

LOL. I thought about putting that one out there and decided that I'd refrain for the moment. It's a very important point. It also is counter to the given the biological and social evidence, it makes for more sense to concluded men and women possess equivalent biological urges to nurture in general.." position.

 

[crysede]

Everyone has dodged one salient fact in all this 'nurturing, caregiving' discussion.

Women have breasts that produce colestrum and milk. One can argue the need for the milk part in today's society. One cannot argue the benefits of colestrum. There is a growing trend towards breast feeding, a reversal of a trend away from same that strated in the 40's.

Besides the birth part, that is one more function that a man will never be able to perform and is also part of the bonding process.

A 'motherless' society does put the child at risk. Just as much as a fatherless society does.

I don't dispute the need for the engagement of both parents, but until such time as women conciously abandon the portions of child rearing that they are uniquely qualified for and that abandonment is accepted by society in general the consequences of the choices will play a role in a woman's ability to advance while still in her child bearing years.

Ishmael

Which is why I support society holding both parties equally responsible rather than holding neither party responsible, or only one responsible.

And while there is a trend towards breast feeding, the trend is to continue it for only 1-2 months, not exactly great reason to argue for women being primarily responsible for the full 16 years of childhood.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

This refutation in inherently flawed because it makes not sense: if you argue that society is not causing women to chose to accept most of the responsibility for child care, then how on earth can you explain the fact that as social pressure on women to stay at home has decreased, women have been becoming more active outside the home and men have been becoming more active inside the home? Biologically evolution can't work that fast, is it just a mysterious coincidence?

You argue that all "nurturing" preferences of women stem from societal pressure. I am pointing out that I think there may be more to it than that. You submitted the premise, all I need to do is cast some doubt on it. There is lots of doubt. Without that point, your whole argument becomes unsubstantiated and inconclusive.