I disagree with this notion on the grounds you shouldn't tell people how to feel, or least of job encourage people to take a path because of money rather then because they enjoy it. Isn't that really just creating an illusion of a free and equal society if you encourage or force people down paths so you feel more comfortable with 2 numbers that don't really or should be a decider in how people live their lives. While yes there is an institutionalized function of gender role in place, I have a question then: What exactly does Free thought look like? Because in anything free form it will always show up to lean in a direction because of the reality of randomness: it RARELY turns out equal. Shouldn't the question how happy are genders with their job then how much they make?Twilight_guy said:
No, What I am getting at is won't we still be deciding what a woman is and is not as collective and isn't that inherently wrong whether or not it is positive.Dijkstra said:
But then won't society just then change their stereotype of a woman to what ever the normal is of that and pressure woman towards that line of work, so in the future we will be back at this table arguing whether or not we should be pushing women to get jobs because they make money and not because they want these jobs?Dijkstra said:
Because most if not all societies as collectives react to changes and in theory having women (roughly 50% of the population) move away from the pink isle is a big damn change and of course society always has a profile of collectives among it, usually based off of a reality that the collective makes and that society reaction to collective. While you are right we can't accurately predict it but aren't we just changing the stereotype and not getting rid of it.Dijkstra said:
then the question that should be asked is 'why do women gravitate towards those fields' (Back in highschool, most girls didn't choose the mathematical courses because their friends didn't, while boys that werenot good at math did, because it was a boy thing) and 'Why do those female-dominated fields pay less?'.Therumancer said:
You're right if they are both the exact same we can't really place a stereotype for it, there would in theory be no differences. But we can't really push ANY group to be exactly like another simply because like I was saying earlier it is statistically impossible. What with the idea of free will and all.Dijkstra said:
We don't need to. There is no actual pay gap, for the most part, and the idea that we're guided into out careers by gender roles doesn't really hold all that much weight when it comes down to the person's decision. There may be pressure to become a parent for women but the choice is ultimately made by the person as to what would make them happiest, not by the mystical gender role enforcement agency.Epic Bear Man said:
Again, there's no need to try and fix it so legislation is a moronic idea; the only legislation that would affect this is something that would forbid gender roles and encourage affirmative action for female careers in traditionally male pursuits, an entirely counter productive idea. If women wish to take more male orientated career paths then cool, career path choices have changed, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it not changing though or a need for it to change.
My solution will bring happiness between people that want to do what they want, regardless of what they've been told and will royally piss off feminists that ultimately alienate both women and men by trying to swap the two's gender roles around.
Why are you being such an asshole? I never claimed that there isn't a middle ground between minimum wage earners and the wealthy elite, and neither did Mr. Mystery Guest for that matter, you're the one who put those words into our mouths. I'm fully aware that there's a thing called the middle class, most of my family is in it, most of my country is in it. I hope to be in it as well some day. Why you would assume otherwise I can't imagine.Dijkstra said:
Who are you quoting? I never said anything like that. I said I care about income inequality, because it increases poverty in my nation and around the world. And this makes me selfish? I never complained about making minimum wage personally, it's my first job, first jobs always suck. That's why I'm in College, I want a better job so that I can join that middle class you don't think I believe exists. However, I care about the welfare of all people, even wealthy CEOs, wanting to "improve my lot in life" doesn't preclude caring about others as well.Dijkstra said:
How vital someone is to society is more or less irrelevent to what they get paid. In general the most vital jobs, people who grow the food, dig the ditches, and similar things tend to be among the lowest paid occupations there are. As important as teachers, nurses, and such are, they are easier to train than engineers, doctors, or other similar professions. Of course it can also be argued that the jobs women tend to go into also tend to be a bit more common so they seem to have an easier time finding employment. You might only have a couple of jobs in an area that require a high level software engineer, but pretty much everywhere has hospitals or schools that need teachers, childcare workers (wherever people work), and nurses and medical assistants that far outnumber the doctors. Truthfully I've heard about tons of people in technical professions winding up homeless on the street despite having PHDs and such due to there simply not being enough jobs for the people qualified to do them, I don't hear that so much when it comes to nurses and such.Lieju said:
The typical gender pay gap numberis median male income vs median female income. It accounts for nothing that effects those numbers at all, and then is described as being "for the same work" or "for he same job."Dijkstra said:
It used to work like that. One of the Lily Ledbetter Act changes was to make statute of limitation for those cases count from when the discrepancy is discovered, rather than when it begins.SadisticFire said:
Ah, look at Iceland-this is a small land but with very good equality-because if you are a woman and you get pregnant, you have the possibility to work at home, many jobs offer a kindergarten for the children and many woman which work in bureaus take their children with them. here n Germany where you have this "good-mother has their child until its 3-ythos" there are too few kindergartens and daycare centres and women which give their children to daycare centres are considered a bad mother. (on the other hand women which stay at home get similar resentments but or society tends to this:you gave birth so you HAVE to be GOOD at caring-which is bullshit, a man can also take care for a child and i think my partner is better with children than me.)bluepilot said: