3 ms·

> Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy

> Even so, you can still point to the discrimination being traditional gender roles, where women are the ones who typically stay at home. Or even to the economy itself; we don't value raising kids as much as we value rising through the ranks of management at some cooperation. Aren't these statements at odd with one another? When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. I think being a CEO or being a grandparent can both be viewed as successful in our society, they shouldn't really be compared directly though.

Miner49er 7y ago
> When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. Yeah exactly, the problem goes away. You don't make money being a stay at home mom though, so maybe that's why we consider it a problem, IDK. I was just offering a couple of ways to look at it where it's still discriminatory. Not saying I agree with either. There has to be a reason somewhere that women aren't as represented in upper management, and when you find that reason you can call it discriminatory, if you think that being upper management is a desirable thing. If you don't then the discrimination isn't bad or you don't consider it discrimination, as you pointed out. Economically, being upper management is certainly good though. That's basically objective.
behringer 7y ago
Also it's rather insulting to say that men progressing through their careers means they don't want to raise their children. I would say many, if not most, men rise strive for promotion for no other reason than to raise their children better...
- Miner49er 7y ago
  I meant economically. We don't pay people to raise kids.
- ghettoimp 7y ago
  Surely a man who is successful in his career can support his children in many ways. This is undoubtedly important to many men. But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...} just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?

Miner49er 7y ago

> When you value raising kids at or above office work, then it doesn't look like "discrimination" that women chose to stay at home to raise a family, it looks like a personal choice that's highly valued by many. Yeah exactly, the problem goes away. You don't make money being a stay at home mom though, so maybe that's why we consider it a problem, IDK. I was just offering a couple of ways to look at it where it's still discriminatory. Not saying I agree with either. There has to be a reason somewhere that women aren't as represented in upper management, and when you find that reason you can call it discriminatory, if you think that being upper management is a desirable thing. If you don't then the discrimination isn't bad or you don't consider it discrimination, as you pointed out. Economically, being upper management is certainly good though. That's basically objective.

behringer 7y ago

Also it's rather insulting to say that men progressing through their careers means they don't want to raise their children. I would say many, if not most, men rise strive for promotion for no other reason than to raise their children better...

Miner49er 7y ago
I meant economically. We don't pay people to raise kids.
ghettoimp 7y ago
Surely a man who is successful in his career can support his children in many ways. This is undoubtedly important to many men. But most men who strive for promotions surely have many reasons other than their children. Who doesn't want {appreciation, autonomy, status, money, ...} just for the sake of their own ego, identity, power, etc.?