|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by thea on 03:38 PM December 30th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"Its research also found that about 20% of women faced dismissal or financial loss as a result of pregnancy."
I seriously doubt that seeing how the government and feminazi groups forces companies to bend over backwards for women, especially pregnant women. To me, it sounds like some women are shocked that they have to make sacrifices when pregnant. Or is it, pregnant women expect to be treated like omnipotent goddesses when they become pregnant, and anything less would be unjust, oppressive, and discrimination? I think so. Pregnant women are spoiled.
The BBC is trying to use sensational tactics and misconstrued statistics (provided by feminists) to stir emotions, scare politicians into passing more maternal-feminist legislation, and of course, scare companies to do *EVEN MORE* bending over and being little submissive puppets for greedy, spoiled women.
But really, this just sounds like women being shocked that they-for once in their over priveleged life-may have to sacrifice some things like career and money, when they become pregant. And the feminist-owned press is milking it for all it's worth.
Glass ceiling my ass. When I become an attorney at a firm, I will have more luxuries (that I don't need, nor want) than my male counterpart. All I would have to do is get pregnant, and I would be treated like royalty whereas he would have to pay for it, all because he can't get pregnant. But that won't happen, because I'm not having kids. It's the childless, career-oriented life for me.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life is about choices, everybody is free to make choices, men and women. Women can choose to have kids or they can choose to go for a top job. But whatever choice they make, kids or job, they will have to work, and that's the problem, most of them(not all) just don't like working.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 12:49 PM December 31st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the article, one thing jumped out and I don’t know why I realized it this time. Read the following quote from the article:
“Business has been a traditionally male domain so the qualities that are seen as desirable in order to succeed are male - aggression, single-mindedness, ruthlessness, inability to admit to mistakes. Traditional "female" qualities such as good communication skills and multi tasking are valued but are simply not given as much credence as male ones so the cycle persists.”
I realized that this thing has been said so much it’s a canned answer that sounds good but wait one second.
In business there are no traditions except the bottom line. A business doesn’t care who is doing what as long as that maximized their profits.
It’s interesting to note that she says the qualities that are desirable in order to succeed are male… There are no qualities specific to a gender for if there were then it can’t be argued that we can be equal. Also what she says shows a lack of understanding in business or rather a lack of understanding what’s going on.
(if you use the wrong definition of a word or meaning then when you try to behave in that way it will be wrong, it will not work, and you then sink to saying that it only works for men, or women)
AGGRESSION
There is a big difference between aggression
1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.
And being aggressive;
While aggressive CAN be a negative expression of aggression, it ALSO means
1. Assertive, bold, and energetic:
2. Of or relating to an investment or approach to investing that seeks above-average returns by taking above-average risks
3. growing, developing, or spreading rapidly
NO one like to do business with someone that is hostile but we do like to do business with someone bold and energetic that seeks above average returns…
So if you confuse assertive with being hostile (because both are somewhat insensitive), then when you try to be aggressive you are actually being hostile.. do you do business with hostile people? If you were the boss, would you promote a hostile person?
SINGLE-MINDEDNESS
Again not particularly a male trait (tell me feminists aren’t single minded)
There are good ways and bad to look at this.
Women often think that this quality does not stand up as good as the quality to be flexible… is it?
Single mindedness is proceeding with FOCUS, DIRECTION, STAYING ON TRACK… Having one overriding purpose or goal… Steadfast; resolute
What this rote answer is implying is that women cant do this. Again I am saying this is not true at all. Again if you were doing business would you want to do business with a well focused person or a person with chronic ADHD? Would you like your surgeon to be distracted and flexible while operating? When its your money being spent on a specific thing, even when a woman is buying a service, does she want a person that does other things when you only need one thing done?
Ruthless
No this doesn’t mean that your wife Ruth didn’t come with you…
This is an opinion word with many negative equivalents. The reason its an opinion word is that there is no ruler of absolute ruthlessness. Like bright, or dim, or sweet.. it is on a spectrum that is defined by opinion. If I fire someone then some may consider me ruthless and uncaring in light of that person’s hardship. But is this really ruthless or is it having to carry out what needs to be done? Most businesses would rather be so successful that they could swallow up all workers and have them make profit for them, but when that doesn’t happen then you do what’s necessary…
In fact this is another misrepresentation of single mindedness. When a person is single minded they often appear rutheless. You cant sway them with an emotional argument, which is the tool that women like to use over logic cause it trumps logic in a person where it strikes a chord.
Tell me Martha stewart is not single minded? And because of it appears ruthless?
Tell me female lawyers aren’t ruthless? Or a mother that drowns her children?
No BOTH genders are capable of great ruthlessness.
inability to admit to mistakes
this one makes me laugh because this is the quality that got mr bush elected!!!! Its not a male or female quality.. either side can be obstinate enough not to admit it, but if one side doesn’t see the power in it and the other does, then one will gain an advantage.
To admit a mistake makes you appear weak. Oh, there is a lot of wonderful popular things that we say to ameliorate it (along with tons of others for other things).
What women don’t get is that men do not do well if we appear weak. I can think of dozens of words that woman AND men use to describe men who say sorry all the time, or are overly sensitive, etc. Try on wimp, weakling, wuss, and that’s just some of the W’s.
Actually to do that is to be SUBMISSIVE.. even Microsoft word will tell you that you are writing in a passive voice..
A mistake confirmed by the person making the error is a mistake made real, a mistake not admitted is not as concrete. It’s the difference between a 100% vote, and a 99% vote. When things get to that wire, then the one that didn’t admit it wins!!!! With lots of tests of this, and lots of businesses and such.. this small effect can be multiplied over and over..
As far as the qualities she says are on the female side are
good communication skills and multi tasking
these are also good qualities of a leader, and men do this too.. in fact Thomas Jefferson was a pretty good speaker. And every male politician has to communicate to their constituency, the list goes on..
but a person that only has these qualities and not the others will lose to a person that has the whole package.. and it also depends on how these are expressed…
good communication can be considered being able to get your message across, but a person that is real good at communication can also use it to NOT communicate, miscommunication, obfuscate, etc…. a person with good communication skills can manipulate the whole panoply of what’s in their tool chest.
[female qualities] are valued but are simply not given as much credence as male ones so the cycle persists
this is the gist of the whole thing here.. she implies that because men have these qualities they are summarily and automatically rewarded.. as if someone upstairs has a point table and says this one counts more this one counts less etc..
business cares about results, not which combination of tools you used to get results. So a person is not rewarded for being a good speaker, they are rewarded for speaking well at the right time! They are not rewarded for ruthelessness because they are just mean, its because they can turn it on and not let issues that don’t belong creep in to what needs to be done.
This is what the ones that claim a glass ceiling miss.
They also don’t get that business is an extension of war and battle. Companies compete to survive, a good business man get this, and so his single minded focus is to keep the company alive and by doing so themselves.
Use the body as a model. Its like that old aesops story (I think), where each of the organs argue which one is more important than the other because the body would die without them. but in truth the body needs all the different types.
Now imagine the body wasn’t ruthless enough to kill another body so it can eat..
Who wins? Who survives?
I can see what women want business to be like.. they want it to be like the NASH model of economics versus the Adam Smith model. But the NASH model ONLY works when all parties cooperate, the model breaks down once someone cheats. So the safer model without some check or balance is the Adam Smith model. The companies that can benefit from NASH are ones so large that if it doesn’t work out they are not dead, their size means that breaking the model will not give them such an advantage over the other giant that in the future it would only make things worse. Now if the companies are small and the one that cheats not only makes out but puts the other ones out of business then NASH will break down and that’s the end of it.
The feminists have defined men as bumbling and such, and women BELIEVE that, and therefore they can’t understand how they are so successful (especially now that they have been told that their qualities are secretly better but being held back).
Guess what girls? We are anything but bumbling, and as long as you think that way you wont get any where AND the feminists will have a tool to work with.. Now if women believed men were very capable, and then tried to compete on the same territory without special rules I am sure they would succeed, and the feminists would have no tool.
Not only that but without the crutches you wont learn to walk, and so it’s the feminists keeping their own women down by using the same cultural force they said the men used!!!!! They give them crutches and then say that the reason they cant run with the men is that men don’t value crutches, which is true!!! We want to be able to run and we know that these are crutches, and no one can convince us they are not (focus), and so we walk without them and go farther faster. We also crash more and crash harder and hit bottom more and harder!!!!
here is the other clever manipulation.. open up here it comes…
the qualities that are not liked by women are the qualities that make men successful against all comers. Since the measure of what works is results and logic not opinion the guys have a ruler to compare with. Now the kicker is that women have these qualities too. what would happen if men actually started listening and then suppressed those qualities that work for those that they are told that work? They will then start losing, and the women that express these will win more, but not because of a level playing field…
there are reasons that the women in the feminist movement couch things certain ways and portray things and shift the court that they get resolved in (heart vs head)… guys we also are stupid when we say they are writing nonsense. Nonsense is not successful. So obviously unlike guys these women are discussing how they will express these things and modeling how we will respond.. it’s the only way this would have gotten this far. They ARE doing what they CLAIM the men are doing (patriarchal) but actually are NOT doing. And are doing it behind close doors…
whenever you see a catch sentence like this being promoted by a stranger on the street asked a question you can be sure the meme was injected and was so good that its picked up, and is repeated over and over. Its constructed that you cant use logic to break it and so it quickly becomes unassailable.
An emotional argument can trump logic!!!
Logic can’t trump emotion!!!
REMEMBER THAT!!!!!
This does not mean the emotional argument is more right than the logic because once on the field of emotion right and wrong are no longer the measure.
Painting women as poor and always downtrodden is emotional. No amount of fact is going to sway a person that feels that this is true. When we cant or don’t have the full picture we use our feelings. And since the nature of this argument is such that people wont hold still for all that information, the 2 min passion play works.
Whoops I gotta get going..
If people think I have a few good things here I can be convinced to put the best parts together in a less dash off manner for an article.. so please let me know if I should work this out more and more formally.. thx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 07:54 PM December 30th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Just 1% more women were occupying senior positions in business, the police force and the judiciary than a year ago.
Women accounted for 11% of director level positions in British businesses in 2004, the report found, and 21% of senior positions in the public and voluntary sectors.
Sad movies and sad stories like this one always make me cry. I am checking into the HeartBreak Hotel before the next teardrop falls.
Oh Boo Hoo! :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:09 PM December 30th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
what about women's statistics in being welders, shipyard grunt workers, dry wall hangers, coal miners, janitors, factory workers (i've worked in factory's and contrary to what some feminists say I saw very few women working there, and I had to pick up some of their slack as well though I'm sure they got paid the same starting wage), roofers, sky rise window cleaners, street cleaners, and garbage women?
boo hoo, women aren't on the very top. They aren't on the bottomw to doing the dirty hazardous work either....
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 09:38 PM December 30th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I have never seen a garbage(woman)riding on the back of a garbage truck in all kinds of weather slinging garbage cans into the back!
There may be one out there somewhere but I have never heard of or seen one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:36 PM January 2nd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, Luek.
I've lived in the same place for about 40 years and even though my garbage colectors have changed many times in the four decades I have been here, not ONCE has any of them been female.
Even when I've been out of the state (on rare occasions) I have yet to ever see a female sanitation worker.
My bet is that if any women are involved in sanitation work, it is behind a desk or something, if even then.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:47 PM January 2nd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I've seen many garbage women. They're called feminazis. But they don't collect garbage. They disseminate it.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) said women had made only marginal progress in filling more top jobs in public life and business in 2004."
Where the above is demonstrably not true, is within the EOC itself. Here women hold all the senior positions and occupy five times more than men the total number of positions available . . . hence the bigotry witnessed in this article.
Incidently, they have argued with myself that men are rarely victims of DV . . . which only demonstrates their blinkered, ignorant and biased view of matters ! ! !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:00 PM December 30th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell's new book arrived yesterday, but I'm only on page xxiii of the introduction. So far it's very interesting reading.
Why Men Earn More
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 10:25 PM December 31st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I run a small IT consultancy in a very specialist field, and this touches on some problems we had last year (and are likely to have again).
We hired a woman consultant to work alongside two male consultants. She was as skilled and as valued, and in fact due to trying to win her away from a competitor she was paid more than her two male counterparts.
However a few months into her work for us we started having problems. She would call in sick. She would turn up late for meetings, etc. Usually this revolved around problems with her private life (there were no children involved).
In the end we realised we were paying more and getting about 70% of the work we were getting from the male consultants. We tried all the standard channels of HR to fix things up and get her to improve, but it just didn't work.
However, because she was a female - and our only female employee at that time - HR warned us that we were walking in a minefield if we wanted to let her go. Any way we turned we could be sued if not careful, and it turned into a two-mont-long headache while we tried to resolve it one way or the other.
In the end she left, going to another competitor for even more money (boy did we jump for joy at that!) but before she left she was talking seriously about having a child and taking a career break. As a small business the figures we were looking at to pay her on her break and hire someone else to do the work were scary, and the cold sweats didnt stop until she left.
As an employer I can say that this taught me that hiring women is a dangerous thing. I know that's a terrible thing to say, but it's true. The power that this woman had over us as a company was bizarre, thanks to the wonderful UK legal system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:53 PM January 1st, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"However, because she was a female - and our only female employee at that time - HR warned us that we were walking in a minefield if we wanted to let her go. "
================================================== ================================
Here are a couple of books somewhat related to what you've experienced. The first book is by a woman who was a woman's studies instructor for 10 years and deals mostly with sexual harassment laws in various educational settings. In a nutshell the book shows how the sexual harassment industry has run amok in educational workplaces.
I haven't read the second book yet, but it looks interesting, and there are reviews at Amazon.com.
Ray
Heterophobia : Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism
You Can't Say That: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
More "glass ceiling"