|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 13, @08:17PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know alot about life in India. But I do know that development organizations and NGOs tend to be viciously anti-male. It's sort of feminist imperialism.
Do you think contempt for men is a cancer that has spread from the West to India, or is it an indigenous development?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Do you think contempt for men is a cancer that has spread from the West to India, or is it an indigenous development?
When times get bad, why not hire women instead of men wherever possible? After all, a woman isn't primarily responsible for her family's support, she merely supplements it. As a result, she easily accepts lower pay.
The solution? I think here in the U.S., a law should be passed that makes it illegal for women to accept jobs for less money than what would be paid to a man. How do we decide what a man would be paid? It can be decided by the same people who keep telling us that women are still paid only $.78 for every dollar that men are paid. And we'll use the same technique as this organization uses to arrive at that statistic.
I think that would stop the constant whining from that organization on this issue and will probably in a large percentage of cases, do away with the competition of women who do the same job as men for less money.
Women who accept jobs for less money than their men counterparts would forfeit all their pay to the government until it's raised to the proper level. The money would be donated to a government fund for the support of unemployed men.
Ha! ha!
Anyone noticed lately, as I have, how many offices have 95%-100% women employees? If pay of men and women were equalized in this way, I wonder how many employers would start choosing men over women when the money variable was removed from the equation.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 13, @10:39PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Both. Indian (indegenous) feminists have already done a lot of damage (& they have links with feminists in the West). Also, quite a few Indian academicians have realized that if they produce `research' that bashes men, they can have access to tons of funds from Western donor agencies. So they just do that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is worrying is that male employment in this sector actually declined by 1.3 million and female employment increased by 0.4 million.
This sounds like the number of jobs in this sector has actually decreased by a net total of .9 million.
Also as percentages are based on a fixed number of 100, there is only one way for percentages to change. If one "group" increases in percentage, other "groups" declines. This is the only way it can work. However, percentages don't necessarily imply that there are fewer people number of people in a particular group. For example, more women work outside the home today in the USA than say in the 1950's, but there are also a net gain of many more jobs. So althought men "lost" in the percentage numbers, there are more men working today than in 1950, partly because there are more people, partly because our economy grew to absorb the highter number of workers.
In short percentages are often used to play a zero sum game whereby if Eskimos gain 1% point (in anything) someone else "loses" a percentage point. Then a false these is implied the Eskimos are "taking our jobs" or "pushing us out".
The same zero-sum logic is used in arguments against immigration. The more Mexicans who come to the USA the demographic percentage of other groups drop. Then people say Oh My God, whites (or blacks) are becoming a smaller statistical group!!! Meanwhile the actual number of people of various groups is not necessarily declining. It may be growing.
The same here. If the the percentage of women in these jobs in India increases, the percentage of men will HAVE to decline because that is the mathematical reality. There is a finite formula for figuring percentages. Meanwhile, if they are actually cutting jobs, which is seems they have, the percentage of women can actually go up without the actual number of women going up. Or it can be a combination. But in no way do the statistics mean men are being discriminated against. They may be, but the statistics don't prove that. In any case, unless we are advocating statistical parity in hiring, it doesn't matter. The number of jobs available is what is important in any economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 17, @12:22AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you didn't read the figures in detail. It's not just the percentage of men in this sector that has declined. What has happened is 1) Total no. of jobs in this sector is down by 0.9 million (as you correctly point out). 2) The number of working men has declined in absolute numbers (1.3 million). and 3) The no. of working women has gone up in absolute terms (by 0.4 million). So, it's absolute numbers, not just percentages!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
