4 ms·

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having k

by ketzo 6y ago

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT. And it’s not even all malicious! It just comes from a place of, I would say, well-intended ignorance.

irrational 6y ago
So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.
- watwut 6y ago
  There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement. And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues". Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
- nosewings 6y ago
  Is it really impossible to imagine that things change? Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?
  - irrational 6y ago
    The hard thing to imagine is the in-between time. These two plots are so opposite one another that in the middle of switching between the two the patriarchy must’ve had a coup, or had a meeting where the head of the patriarchy laid down the law and everyone tied the line, or there was mass confusion. Did the old patriarchs get replaced by new patriarchs with a new plot? Did they purposefully change their plot and women currently are unwittingly playing their game? Did they just give in to the inevitable and then devise a new plot?
gridlockd 6y ago
It's not ignorance, it's common business sense. Suppose you couldn't work full-time because of reason X. It doesn't matter what reason X is, I can not use your work in the same way, if for no other reason than Brooks's law applying. Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business. Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Sorry to hear about these experiences. It reminds me of the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Business leaders may (wrongly, or not) think that putting women on projects that will get delayed by pregnancy will put them at a competitive disadvantage. The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).

by ketzo 6y ago

irrational 6y ago

So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.

watwut 6y ago
There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement. And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues". Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
nosewings 6y ago
Is it really impossible to imagine that things change? Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?
- irrational 6y ago
  The hard thing to imagine is the in-between time. These two plots are so opposite one another that in the middle of switching between the two the patriarchy must’ve had a coup, or had a meeting where the head of the patriarchy laid down the law and everyone tied the line, or there was mass confusion. Did the old patriarchs get replaced by new patriarchs with a new plot? Did they purposefully change their plot and women currently are unwittingly playing their game? Did they just give in to the inevitable and then devise a new plot?

gridlockd 6y ago

It's not ignorance, it's common business sense. Suppose you couldn't work full-time because of reason X. It doesn't matter what reason X is, I can not use your work in the same way, if for no other reason than Brooks's law applying. Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business. Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Sorry to hear about these experiences. It reminds me of the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Business leaders may (wrongly, or not) think that putting women on projects that will get delayed by pregnancy will put them at a competitive disadvantage. The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).