5 ms·

No matter how effective, I will always believe that this is outright wrong and sexist. I am amazed that my home country, Sweden, has not followed since it is b

No matter how effective, I will always believe that this is outright wrong and sexist. I am amazed that my home country, Sweden, has not followed since it is basically the feminist capital of the world.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
Yeah but most of the outright wrong and sexist things our societies allow seem to disadvantage women. This doesn't make it even, but it's a good step.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Which things?
  - robert_foss 9y ago
    Are you asking what sexist biases exist within society that are working against the interest of Women? How about: - Income inequality - Unequal domestic workload - Only 22% of elected parliamentarians being female
    - Rainymood 9y ago
      I kind of like Dr. Peteron's view on these kind of questions, try flipping them around. Don't ask "Why do women earn less?" Try framing it as "What are the reasons men earn more?" Another one, "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" There are a lot of reasons for the inequality between men and women. I'm not saying they are "justified" or "fair" but there are some obvious (painful, even) but true reasons why men and women don't earn the same. Of course, these reasons do not specify the whole margin but they explain quite some of the variation.
      - louhike 9y ago
        > "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" What does it change if the answer is "It is easier for men because they have to put up with less harassment, less pressure and are more encouraged"?
      - aninhumer 9y ago
        >"Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" Except this "framing" implicitly introduces the assumption that gendered differences in stress and pressure tolerance is the cause.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      But you are describing "sexist outcomes" which isn't the same sense of the word. It alludes to a sexist mechanism only - whereas the board quotas are the sexist mechanism. "Income inequality" Has been discussed plenty of time, so I'm not going to reproduce it here. In any case, there is plenty of dispute on whether it is the result of "sexism". "domestic workload" is something society does criticise, but in any case it is a social convention only - not enforced by law.
    - bgie 9y ago
      Income inequality? Does risk of dying on the job count as something worth higher pay? If so, then I think you should reconsider the mantra of "wage gap". Have a look at the death gap! https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobod... Note: this is just the first hit on google, I'm a bit reluctant to write down an entire arguement here because you have very like already made up your mind...
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    Depends on where you are. Not all of these apply everywhere, but: - lack of maternity leave - being judged on personal appearance even in office settings because your appearance is more tied to your worth than it is for men - when you are harsh as a boss, labelled "bossy" as a negative. I don't hear many men labelled "bossy". - be chided about "being on your period" in case you say something people don't like - people confusing you for secretary / non-technical role because you are not man - people talking about things which may be sensitive to women in the workplace moreso than men and make them uncomfortable / unable to participate (for example, porn, I have seen this in my office) - after-hours fraternizing at the bar or on the golf course (or other largely men's activity, it's never going to the salon, for example). - harrassment / dating propositions (imo, it's not okay either way but obviously more likely for men to do to women in office than the other way around) - late-night meetings, frequent expectation for workers to come in late and stay late (if women mostly take responsibilities of children at home, this affects them more). - less pay because rather than keeping pays equal, companies only offer raises to those who ask Surely there are others. Perhaps some of these seem innocuous to you, but altogether they are potent.
    - nothrabannosir 9y ago
      > - lack of maternity leave Tangential: I heard a wild, but interesting argument the other day about how allowing different maternity leave between men and women, ceteris paribus, would lead to gender discrimination when hiring. The reasoning was: regardless of the reason being "fair", companies would see women as having a higher chance of taking more leave than men, and thus have less value, overall. It was an interesting argument for prohibiting differences between paternity and maternity leave, i.o.w.: you must give new fathers as much time off as you give new mothers, no more, no less. It sounded nice so I never researched whether it was experimentally confirmed / disproven :)
      - abusoufiyan 9y ago
        This is why very progressive countries implement combined paternal and maternal leave. If one spouse doesn't take it, the couple loses that time. The pressure on men and women to take time off after a baby diminishes the effect you speak of.
- bgie 9y ago
  Like the workplace death gap? How about quota for that? </sarcasm> Men and women both suffer, yet men suffer in silence...
- staticelf 9y ago
  I disagree. In Sweden, at least, it is my opinion that there are more things in society that are disadvantages to men rather to women. Still however, people who vouch for sexist laws as this one always seem to see women as victims. I personally believe that this is just a part of their ideology. The idea of a patriarchy is a fixed idea which will never change no matter how much legislation that gets pushed. I will never support such an ideology and I will probably not really respect quota hires since they are just that. They are not hired because they seemed best for the position, just to appease to some social justice laws or beliefs.
Double_a_92 9y ago
It's sexist both ways too. Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. Every error you do would count tenfolds against you... That can't be good. And those negative views don't entirely come from sexism. I assume similar things would happen if there was a quota for e.g. short people. People are just jealous and claim that others don't deserve things. Edit: If you feel the urge to dislike could you at least state what you didn't like? Or are discussions frowned upon nowadays?
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  >Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. That's their problem. They want to vocalize it, well you can fire them!
  - Double_a_92 9y ago
    It's not even about vocalizing it. You yourself could also feel that way... Always questioning if you really earned this. Leading to imposter syndrome, insecurity and so on which might really turn you into a bad leader.
    - abusoufiyan 9y ago
      Imposter syndrome is real. But if you are literally on the board of a company, I doubt it matters as much. Also, lots of people inherited rather than earned their wealth. Should we outlaw that to save them from imposter syndrome?
      - Double_a_92 9y ago
        No but we shoulnd't create a law that randomly takes the wealth of every second heir, and gives it to an orphan kid instead. Technically they are equal, they just happened to be born somewhere different. So it should be fair, right? That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...

abusoufiyan 9y ago

Yeah but most of the outright wrong and sexist things our societies allow seem to disadvantage women. This doesn't make it even, but it's a good step.

Chris2048 9y ago
Which things?
- robert_foss 9y ago
  Are you asking what sexist biases exist within society that are working against the interest of Women? How about: - Income inequality - Unequal domestic workload - Only 22% of elected parliamentarians being female
  - Rainymood 9y ago
    I kind of like Dr. Peteron's view on these kind of questions, try flipping them around. Don't ask "Why do women earn less?" Try framing it as "What are the reasons men earn more?" Another one, "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" There are a lot of reasons for the inequality between men and women. I'm not saying they are "justified" or "fair" but there are some obvious (painful, even) but true reasons why men and women don't earn the same. Of course, these reasons do not specify the whole margin but they explain quite some of the variation.
    - louhike 9y ago
      > "Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" What does it change if the answer is "It is easier for men because they have to put up with less harassment, less pressure and are more encouraged"?
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      >"Why is it that there are so few women in high level management positions?" frame it as "Why are there so much men willing to put up with the stress and pressure of high level management positions?" Except this "framing" implicitly introduces the assumption that gendered differences in stress and pressure tolerance is the cause.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    But you are describing "sexist outcomes" which isn't the same sense of the word. It alludes to a sexist mechanism only - whereas the board quotas are the sexist mechanism. "Income inequality" Has been discussed plenty of time, so I'm not going to reproduce it here. In any case, there is plenty of dispute on whether it is the result of "sexism". "domestic workload" is something society does criticise, but in any case it is a social convention only - not enforced by law.
  - bgie 9y ago
    Income inequality? Does risk of dying on the job count as something worth higher pay? If so, then I think you should reconsider the mantra of "wage gap". Have a look at the death gap! https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobod... Note: this is just the first hit on google, I'm a bit reluctant to write down an entire arguement here because you have very like already made up your mind...
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  Depends on where you are. Not all of these apply everywhere, but: - lack of maternity leave - being judged on personal appearance even in office settings because your appearance is more tied to your worth than it is for men - when you are harsh as a boss, labelled "bossy" as a negative. I don't hear many men labelled "bossy". - be chided about "being on your period" in case you say something people don't like - people confusing you for secretary / non-technical role because you are not man - people talking about things which may be sensitive to women in the workplace moreso than men and make them uncomfortable / unable to participate (for example, porn, I have seen this in my office) - after-hours fraternizing at the bar or on the golf course (or other largely men's activity, it's never going to the salon, for example). - harrassment / dating propositions (imo, it's not okay either way but obviously more likely for men to do to women in office than the other way around) - late-night meetings, frequent expectation for workers to come in late and stay late (if women mostly take responsibilities of children at home, this affects them more). - less pay because rather than keeping pays equal, companies only offer raises to those who ask Surely there are others. Perhaps some of these seem innocuous to you, but altogether they are potent.
  - nothrabannosir 9y ago
    > - lack of maternity leave Tangential: I heard a wild, but interesting argument the other day about how allowing different maternity leave between men and women, ceteris paribus, would lead to gender discrimination when hiring. The reasoning was: regardless of the reason being "fair", companies would see women as having a higher chance of taking more leave than men, and thus have less value, overall. It was an interesting argument for prohibiting differences between paternity and maternity leave, i.o.w.: you must give new fathers as much time off as you give new mothers, no more, no less. It sounded nice so I never researched whether it was experimentally confirmed / disproven :)
    - abusoufiyan 9y ago
      This is why very progressive countries implement combined paternal and maternal leave. If one spouse doesn't take it, the couple loses that time. The pressure on men and women to take time off after a baby diminishes the effect you speak of.
bgie 9y ago
Like the workplace death gap? How about quota for that? </sarcasm> Men and women both suffer, yet men suffer in silence...
staticelf 9y ago
I disagree. In Sweden, at least, it is my opinion that there are more things in society that are disadvantages to men rather to women. Still however, people who vouch for sexist laws as this one always seem to see women as victims. I personally believe that this is just a part of their ideology. The idea of a patriarchy is a fixed idea which will never change no matter how much legislation that gets pushed. I will never support such an ideology and I will probably not really respect quota hires since they are just that. They are not hired because they seemed best for the position, just to appease to some social justice laws or beliefs.

Double_a_92 9y ago

It's sexist both ways too. Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. Every error you do would count tenfolds against you... That can't be good. And those negative views don't entirely come from sexism. I assume similar things would happen if there was a quota for e.g. short people. People are just jealous and claim that others don't deserve things. Edit: If you feel the urge to dislike could you at least state what you didn't like? Or are discussions frowned upon nowadays?

abusoufiyan 9y ago
>Even if you are a woman that really deserved to lead some company, people will think that you just got there because of the quota. That's their problem. They want to vocalize it, well you can fire them!
- Double_a_92 9y ago
  It's not even about vocalizing it. You yourself could also feel that way... Always questioning if you really earned this. Leading to imposter syndrome, insecurity and so on which might really turn you into a bad leader.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    Imposter syndrome is real. But if you are literally on the board of a company, I doubt it matters as much. Also, lots of people inherited rather than earned their wealth. Should we outlaw that to save them from imposter syndrome?
    - Double_a_92 9y ago
      No but we shoulnd't create a law that randomly takes the wealth of every second heir, and gives it to an orphan kid instead. Technically they are equal, they just happened to be born somewhere different. So it should be fair, right? That kid when he grows up might indeed feel weird about all the undeserved money...