3 ms·

Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so

Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings
- oinksoft 13y ago
  In what context could those statements (1) make any sense, or (2) be in any way acceptable? And further, you wrote one piddling paragraph. Any reader can plainly find the context: It is that you believe in gender roles so strong, it sounds as though you are an early 19th-century time traveler who just hopped out his ship. You conceal this in what I think boils down to, "men are better at everything," but it's clear you think that women belong in the kitchen and men in the mineshaft (especially when reading your other comments for this article).
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    If traditional gender roles are NOT so strong with you, why you are the one so strongly defending "XIX Century" role of a father "provider" who can't be a good parent and gets the children in less than 10% of divorce rulings? Somehow when talking about employment 50/50 rule is very forward thinking, but if somebody would dare to employ the same rule to divorce court rulings it's "19th century". So when at work we are all forgetting about the traditional family rules, but when in the court law having a divorce case we can be as sexist as we were 100 years ago? That's your progress? As long as it is better just for one gender it is good? That's how you fight sexism?
    - oinksoft 13y ago
      I'm not sure if your original choice of words was regrettable, or if you're trying to cover a retreat. The tenor of your comments (here and elsewhere) certainly suggests the latter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former .. never use "natural" when you mean "historic." And "Somehow (emphasis added) we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" implies that you find this unbelievable. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is exactly how it sounds.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        No, no, no. I did use the word "natural" as intended. I did mean that there are natural roles in the society for men and for women. As the proof I provided that the natural roles are still there in the courts of law. Apparently in the eyes of courts males are not as good parents as females. That's the law. Because apparently that's natural. And you seem to be fine with that natural. If the natural order of things works in women advantage, you're fine with it not being changed in the past 100 years or so. Let the courts rule in favor of women to have right to the kids. You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at disadvantage. Let me be cynical here to get my point accross: I strongly believe that it is natural for men to be income providers. As you seem to strongly agree that it is natural that women are the ones getting rights to the children in over 90% of divorce cases. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? You see, why don't we talk about this that it is 19th Century mentality to give kids to mother in over 90% of the divorce cases? How came it works only one way? That's the point I wanted to get across, not to argue about single words semantics.
        oinksoft 13y ago
        You've really gone off the deep end now. At least you've completely contradicted your "progressive" defense earlier, and now it is transparent that you have antiquated views about very strong gender roles. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? Seeing that I haven't stated any of my own views, other than that I find yours very distasteful, I've got a hunch we agree on very few things about this. And you seem to be fine with that natural. You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at disadvantage. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? Don't use me as your straw man, please.
- samastur 13y ago
  Quoting is practically by definition taking something out of context. That doesn't mean it is wrong, especially in this case where I would say it sums up your apparent attitude quite well since you ARE talking about "natural advantage" of men.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    I meant "natural advantage" as perceived 50 years ago. What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago. (i.e. today's father has as many parent rights in the courts as he had 100 years ago. Which are much less/worse than mothers rights).
    - illuminate 13y ago
      "What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago" You seem to perceive this as a zero-sum game. Raising the status of women means that guys' strict gender roles are weakened. Which is an objective good thing. Be a good person, don't lower the status of women because you're confused and frightened with yourself when you can be a stay-at-home-dad and not be a social pariah. Or you can be approached by a woman in a bar and not think she's a slut. Or, your wife can (gods!) make more money than you and not have you be an emasculated pantywaist. Your problem is with your perspective, not the state of women worldwide.
      - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
        It is zero-sum game. 90% of court cases the courts award kids to the mothers. 10% to men. Hence make it 50/50. The same it is zero-sum game with employment. If a child care center employs only women and no men, men who want to work with children loose the game.
        illuminate 13y ago
        None of this has changed due to gains in womens' rights, so using them as an example to rail against the pursuance of womens' rights makes you appear more of a crank than interested in any amount of equality. Asking for both of those to be examined? Fine! Spitting venom towards gender equality because your pet causes aren't given enough interest? That reflects poorly on you.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
yes, men had natural advantage in the workforce because of the stereotype that they are income providers for the family. The natural advantage is gone, the stereotype still functions in all of society including courts. Yes, that's a shame to talk about it. That's a shame nobody does.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings

oinksoft 13y ago
In what context could those statements (1) make any sense, or (2) be in any way acceptable? And further, you wrote one piddling paragraph. Any reader can plainly find the context: It is that you believe in gender roles so strong, it sounds as though you are an early 19th-century time traveler who just hopped out his ship. You conceal this in what I think boils down to, "men are better at everything," but it's clear you think that women belong in the kitchen and men in the mineshaft (especially when reading your other comments for this article).
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  If traditional gender roles are NOT so strong with you, why you are the one so strongly defending "XIX Century" role of a father "provider" who can't be a good parent and gets the children in less than 10% of divorce rulings? Somehow when talking about employment 50/50 rule is very forward thinking, but if somebody would dare to employ the same rule to divorce court rulings it's "19th century". So when at work we are all forgetting about the traditional family rules, but when in the court law having a divorce case we can be as sexist as we were 100 years ago? That's your progress? As long as it is better just for one gender it is good? That's how you fight sexism?
  - oinksoft 13y ago
    I'm not sure if your original choice of words was regrettable, or if you're trying to cover a retreat. The tenor of your comments (here and elsewhere) certainly suggests the latter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former .. never use "natural" when you mean "historic." And "Somehow (emphasis added) we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" implies that you find this unbelievable. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is exactly how it sounds.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      No, no, no. I did use the word "natural" as intended. I did mean that there are natural roles in the society for men and for women. As the proof I provided that the natural roles are still there in the courts of law. Apparently in the eyes of courts males are not as good parents as females. That's the law. Because apparently that's natural. And you seem to be fine with that natural. If the natural order of things works in women advantage, you're fine with it not being changed in the past 100 years or so. Let the courts rule in favor of women to have right to the kids. You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at disadvantage. Let me be cynical here to get my point accross: I strongly believe that it is natural for men to be income providers. As you seem to strongly agree that it is natural that women are the ones getting rights to the children in over 90% of divorce cases. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? You see, why don't we talk about this that it is 19th Century mentality to give kids to mother in over 90% of the divorce cases? How came it works only one way? That's the point I wanted to get across, not to argue about single words semantics.
      - oinksoft 13y ago
        You've really gone off the deep end now. At least you've completely contradicted your "progressive" defense earlier, and now it is transparent that you have antiquated views about very strong gender roles. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? Seeing that I haven't stated any of my own views, other than that I find yours very distasteful, I've got a hunch we agree on very few things about this. And you seem to be fine with that natural. You seem to have a problem only and only when female sex is at disadvantage. So, isn't that dishonest to laugh at me that I believe in natural sex roles in the society when you obviously do believe in them as well? Don't use me as your straw man, please.
samastur 13y ago
Quoting is practically by definition taking something out of context. That doesn't mean it is wrong, especially in this case where I would say it sums up your apparent attitude quite well since you ARE talking about "natural advantage" of men.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  I meant "natural advantage" as perceived 50 years ago. What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago. (i.e. today's father has as many parent rights in the courts as he had 100 years ago. Which are much less/worse than mothers rights).
  - illuminate 13y ago
    "What I meant is that in case of women social roles have progressed since then, while male social roles are still what they were 100 years ago" You seem to perceive this as a zero-sum game. Raising the status of women means that guys' strict gender roles are weakened. Which is an objective good thing. Be a good person, don't lower the status of women because you're confused and frightened with yourself when you can be a stay-at-home-dad and not be a social pariah. Or you can be approached by a woman in a bar and not think she's a slut. Or, your wife can (gods!) make more money than you and not have you be an emasculated pantywaist. Your problem is with your perspective, not the state of women worldwide.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      It is zero-sum game. 90% of court cases the courts award kids to the mothers. 10% to men. Hence make it 50/50. The same it is zero-sum game with employment. If a child care center employs only women and no men, men who want to work with children loose the game.
      - illuminate 13y ago
        None of this has changed due to gains in womens' rights, so using them as an example to rail against the pursuance of womens' rights makes you appear more of a crank than interested in any amount of equality. Asking for both of those to be examined? Fine! Spitting venom towards gender equality because your pet causes aren't given enough interest? That reflects poorly on you.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

yes, men had natural advantage in the workforce because of the stereotype that they are income providers for the family. The natural advantage is gone, the stereotype still functions in all of society including courts. Yes, that's a shame to talk about it. That's a shame nobody does.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]